I came upon several different live post about unique or unusual animals
and it inspired me to put together these worksheets. When I was working in my
middle school in South Korea my students absolutely adored anything to do with
the animal world...

Hi Sara
Here is my daughter's immediate response:
An excellent tool for multiple skills
The worksheets are simple and clear. The process of reading the passages and
completing the worksheets will trigger the inquisitive mind of students and
lead to developing research attitude. Also, it enhances mind mapping skill in
students.

As teachers we understand that this type of worksheets can be used to teach
other concepts too. It also breaks the conventional method of responding to
comprehension passages.
Lesson plans: A mention about the teacher’s prior preparation would orient
teachers to handle curious questions asked by students. The phonetic
transcription of the ‘names of animals’ will help in right pronunciation.

Thank you.
Regards
Ramya Ramkumar

She further says the material will be useful to students of higher classes--she
teaches class 1 students-- and she'll get the feedback from those teachers and
pass it on to you through me.

Thanks so much, this is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I
would enjoy hearing from other teachers she is working with as well. Thanks for
passing these on! I'm really glad that she was pleased with how these break
from reading/comprehension passages. That was a very deliberate work on my part
as critical reading skills are being lost with the almost mindless focus on
question answering. We can, and should, ask for more from ourselves and our
course content.

The usage of mother tongue should br discouraged and used as the last
resort because ecsseve use of mother tongue will undermine the usage snd the
learning of the targetted language. It can be used as the last resort when teaching
abstract vocabulary to save time anf effort.

I suppose it depends on the setting, but in private ESL schools - I have
found that a limited display of my own inept attempts at using the students
mother tongue helps build rapport and break down some of the barriers connected
to shyness or unwillingness to talk as a result of the students lack of
language skills.

As for definitions, I would always use their mother tongue as a last resort
(just as Mahmoud said), describing the word to them and asking them to give me
the equivalent word in their language, which I could then confirm. Of course,
this is dependent on there being an equivalent.

Me

Top Contributor

In a non-native environment, there is no harm in exploiting the
advantages the local provides to teaching English; in fact, we have what is
known as bilingual method. Comprehension is easier with its use. Comfort
accrues to learning. Learning does take place. Where is the harm then?
Of course with a warning about its judicious use.

There are are many theories for teaching languages; however, grammar
cannot be excluded if we want to teach languages academically. Grammar acts as
a guide that directs the the languages teaching process and gives learners a
kind of security while learning language. On the the other hand teacher should
bear in mind accuracy and fluency because if we adpt the too extremes, we will
not get constructive teaching of languages.

I think it is possible to learn a language without learning its grammar
consciously.That is the way we learn our mother tongue.As a practicing English
teacher I can say that even if we teach grammar consciously, the students can
not learn a language but they may learn some rules of grammar which they may
not use in their speaking or writing.Language is a much complex phenomenon.We
should make the children think and construct language instead of teaching
grammar consciously.The grammar of a language should be internalized

Me

The answer is a 'no' even with regard to learning English as one's own
language or as that of another's. Even a native child will need to learn
grammar because of the present day excessive influence of SMS on the mobile and
email abbreviated words on the internet. There was a report some time ago in an
Indian newspaper about school children in England writing answers and
paragraphs with the 'broken' (even literally speaking) English and teachers
were stumped and worried about such a trend. May be a different kind of English
will emerge!

But for the present, as teachers of English--be it in native surroundings or
non-native ones--we'll have to point out to children grammar is not something
to be disliked but to be followed as it reflects only how a language is being
used in a given society at a given time (these days grammar is descriptive
rather than prescriptive). If grammar is not liked by students the fault
probably lies with the writers of grammar books. A lot of examples from
real-life conversations and great fiction writers will have to be presented to
students so that they realize grammar is not their enemy but a friend.

Of course the final say lies with the students themselves whether they'll
accept what teachers present them with or they'll learn the hard way from life
situations they may face as adolescents or adults.

Whether we like it or not, students do assess us right from the moment we enter
the classroom for the first time, even though they may not be conscious of it
as we as teachers assess our students as soon as we enter the classroom. (This
happens, too when two strangers, acquaintances, friends and relatives meet.)
Yes, it can be biased, but we can sift and learn the good observations and also
look at some negative comments objectively.

Also another dimension can be added; teachers can and should assess their own
performance as a teacher of a subject, as a critique of the syllabus and the
textbook and as a classroom manager.

But in reality, assessments are very biased in either case for we judge as
human beings, objectivity is seen less and they are not taken seriously by
either.

Both teachers and students need to be 'educated' or 'enlightened' about the
need to objectively assess themselves and the other party. And hope for the
best! (for human nature controls human behaviour more than we think or can
imagine!)

I believe that energy flows from one source to another. If teachers are
committed to helping learners not only learn subjects, and show personal
interest in their problems--both academic and personal--and do their best to
solve them by seeking help if necessary in all honesty, this definitely rubs
off on their students.

What I said in my previous conversation refers to informal feedback. You
can ask your students to formally evaluate you with a questionnaire:
as a subject teacher
1. language--clarity, pronunciation, speed,
2. manner of handling the text, level of explanation you give
3. your body language--eye contact, cheering, enjoying their company

as a classroom manager
1. apportioning time for teaching, listen to students, quality of comments,
organsing information on the blackboard

as a person
caring, indifferent, judicious, prejudiced, helpful

The same things can be asked for in an informal feeback with a blank paper with
only the titles suggested above.

Yes, Stephen, I can see the danger in getting feedback from students
when they are used as part of teacher assessment. The instrument is not faulty
but the purpose is. Learners should be made to realise that their feedback is
being collected in their own interest and meant solely for the purpose of
improving ways of getting messages across to them.

Of course there is also this danger of learners not being serious about giving
genuine feedback; there is no yardstick for this. Yet, I think learner feedback
will mean something to each other if the relations between a teacher and a set
of learners is cordial, to say the least.

If it´s boring for me, I assume it´s boring for my students. I always
transform some of the exercises into games, may change the order of activities
or skip them and do something else instead. I use lots of my own resources. I
design games and worksheets to work with songs or short film segments (you may
want to check this outhttp://eltgoestothemovies.blogspot.com/).

Why not throw the dice to students and get them to participate in the
learning-teaching act, especially in higher classes in school--say 9 to 12
(according to the system in India)?

Me

A textbook is only one tool in the hands of committed teachers. They can
use newspaper articles, letters to the editor, cooking recipes, sports
magazines (not fashion magazines for diversion here is the easiest and the
quickest!), fiction you may have read or are reading, videos, films--anything
that can offer scope for teaching and learning. Or you can give the initiative
to students to bring their material.

Hi Kolipaka
The textbook is sometimes a psychological prop to both the teacher and student
alike. If it's good, it may be all you need, and often of course it's all you
have. It should be language-rich, have multi-syllabi
(lexical/phonological/structural/skills work/learning strategies/cultural
input) and have enough in it that you can leave out what you don't like or
won't benefit your students. There is a bit of a "textbook-bad' tendency
these days which I don't necessarily go along with, although to be sure there
are some rotten textbooks out there. You can be as creative with a textbook as
you can with any other tool.

There are many factors that may
influence this skill but some that come to mind are:
tone...clarity..coherence...aim...target audience...and accuracy...
These need to be defined further as individual issues because each point has a
various impact on speaking.

I would think that a successful
speaker of any language is one that a listener would understand, and would want
to listen to. Grice's 'Cooperative Principle' and 'Maxims of Conversation' are
well worth looking at. They're simply put, just common sense really.
Phonological correctness is more specific of course, but equally important, and
English language teachers often underestimate the need for skill and
application here.

To be successful in a productive like
speaking, one needs, at first, to be audible enough because the voice is the
only that speakers have to convey his speech. second, one should make an eye
contact with the target audience to ensure their attention. The choice between
formal and informal language use is very crucial in public speaking, and
therefore, successful speakers are those who consider the social context they
are in, before speaking ( that is to say speakers need to adjust their language
level with the place and the people they are speaking with , for example, one
should decide between being formal, less formal or informal in speaking, and
between using easy language style or difficult one). Finally, using accurate
language ( mainly in terms of pronunciation and word choice) and some
appropriate body language signs and gestures are all important to be good at
speaking.

I agree totally with Sireen, moreover
I want to add MOTIVATION. I think when the learners have a clear target they
become self motivated , when they see their teacher cares they get interested
and they do care.

Whatever qualifications and
attributes a speaker may have, in the final analysis, what really matters is
audience's positive response during and after the event through non-verbal and
verbal messages, and getting the audience to act appropriately, I guess.

No, even if it is a reported interrogative:
I don't know who drinks my whisky in the middle of the night.
(You could not remove the 's' from 'drinks' to make the verb plural)
But you can if it is not interrogative:
A teacher who doesn't agree with me is stupid.
Teachers who don't agree with me are stupid.
Both are correct.
Goodness knows why!

"Can’t a verb be used in the plural after the interrogative ‘who’?"
Answer- Yes.

Who cares if the restaurant is expensive? Although the question word,
"who" does not have a plural form, the subject is plural. Subject
indicates whether the verb is to be pluralized. Who (of all the people in the
world) cares?

Verb and subject must agree in tense or aspect. (I am vs. you are)

"Wh-question words" do not determine the agreement between verb's
tenses, or aspects.

Who is coming to the play? Verbs both agree in tense.

"Who" could be one of many, and the correct form of the helping verb
is "is".

Who are coming to the game? No verb agreement in tense or aspect.

Let's just be clear. The best English is language that is understood by others.

We can't say, "They is going to the movies." ("They" is a
plural subject.)

We can say, "They are going to the movies." (The subject needs a form
or tense that matches it (singular or plural).

Hope, this helps, a bit. Sorry about those bothersome hyper-links. They are not
mine, and will lead you astray. Use a regular online dictionary, instead of
clicking on a link that leads to spam, or unwanted ads. Thanks!

Who are you? (addressing one person)
Who is coming with me? (addressing a group)
It's complicated for me too. I think others are better qualified to explain
this rule.

However, on a little tangent.
I think the important point this question has raised for me is this:
When is a student ready for what information?

When I am teaching English in class, I differentiate between phrasebook English
and textbook English.
Phrasebook English is language we learn with no supporting grammar
foundation.
"My name is..." is phrasebook English. We learn it in the first
lesson but with no understanding as to what we are saying other than the
meaning we are conveying.
It is just something to get the students speaking.

"My name is..." becomes textbook English after we have studied
possessives, the verb 'to be' and the vocabulary. Now we can understand the
sentence and adapt the sentence to say other things: His name is.... Their
names are... etc

Our aim is to turn phrasebook English into textbook English in the most
productive way. The transition = true understanding.

So my point.
If this question arises, is it a phrasebook sentence or a textbook sentence we
have encountered?
This is really important as it determines whether the student is ready for the
explanation.
If it is the former, my advice to my students is: If you don't understand it
yet don't worry.
Just learn this phrase for now.

More importantly:
1) Are you communicating your message? In that case that's half the
battle.
You SHOULD BE studying English to communicate with others, so, let's
concentrate on that.

2) Mistakes are good. Mistakes are how we learn but ONLY if you learn from
those mistakes.Follow your instincts and use what you have learnt so far. And
when you make a mistake be ready to learn from anyone good enough to correct
you.
Make correcting each other part of the class responsibility to each other. You
are a team.

3) The student is responsible for his or her own learning. They need to listen
and read extensively. Speak and write as much as they can.
Class rule 1 (The first rule we learn in my class)
Study x use = development
More study x more use = more development.

4) Patience. You should not worry too much about what you have not addressed
yet. There is only so much you can do at any one time. True understanding,
(textbook English) will come with time and experience. (When you are ready for
it.)

In an attempt to get an answer through internet, I came across the first page
of an article entitled ‘Is WHO really a singular?’ and written by Sylvia
Chalker at editor @eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/38/128.

She cites these examples to say a plural verb should be used in these sample
sentences:
Who are playing Navrotilova and Shriver in the women’s doubles?
Who are going to work together on this project?
Who help each other most in time of trouble—rich or poor?
Who are ‘divided by their common language’?
Who were fighting among themselves at that time?
Who play the duets in tomorrow’s concert?
Who have the leading roles in this production?
Who have been appointed director and stage manager?
Who are playing Macbeth and Banquo?

These examples provide a context and thus justify the verb in plural. But what
about these which are her examples, too:
Who inhabit those remote treeless valleys?
Who were pouring across Europe in the Dark Ages, bringing destruction in their
wake?

Here the plurality is obvious even without an explicitly stated context. So I
think a plural verb can follow 'who'.

I think a plural verb can follow who.Suppose you are asking more than
one person, you can say who are coming with me? suppose you think only one has
done some thing, you say, for example,who has broken the mirror?I do not think
who should only be followed by a singular verb.I think it depends more on the
meaning.But what is considered singular.What makes you think so.You can not say
what make you think so or what are being done by you?

I've just thought of one:
The whole synod condemned his behavior but, after all, who are they to stand in
judgement?
(I nearly wrote "Who are they to judge?" but realised that this is
ambiguous.)
It's odd, but when you think about it, one can almost always find a context for
the most unlikely word sequences.

Truly,Wh - question words are followed by a singular verb form
especially when you don't know the one who does the action: "Who is going
to attend the meeting?" although you may know consciously that there must
be 3 or more people. But, when you address the question to one PRESENTLY who
you expect him/her to answer, it's obvious that you are going to use the 2nd
person either singular or plural: "Who are you?; what do you know about
love?".

I hope I have contributed to this particular discussion concerning to GRAMMAR,
a boring subject as my students say.

In an attempt to get an answer through internet, Kolipaka
Lakshminarayanan, an
active member, Expert Panel, Procademia, Chennai came across the first page of
an article entitled ‘Is WHO really a singular?’ and written by Sylvia Chalker
at editor @eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/38/128.

He said, "She cites these examples to say a plural verb should be used in
these sample sentences."

Those are my (Jeffrey) "OK's in parenthesis. (OK)

(OK) Who are playing Navrotilova and Shriver in the women’s doubles?

Who are going to work together on this project?

I disagree with this sentence. It will be better in American English to say,
"Who is going to ....come to work tomorrow, going to work overtime, today,
....etc. We understand clearly, that we can be refering to any number of
people...the whole staff, group, etc.

,
Who help each other most in time of trouble—rich or poor?

Interesting>>>>I would say, Who helps- pluralizing the verb
"help".

(OK) Who are ‘divided by their common language’?

(OK) Who were fighting among themselves at that time?

Who play the duets in tomorrow’s concert?

Change this to "Who will play ...(Here, there is a future context, and the
modal verb "will" is perfect. Consider, "Who is playing the
duets, in tomorrow's concert?" (continuous- the musicians are not expected
to be changed...) The original construction makes no sense. (Who play the duets
in tomorrow’s concert?)

(OK) Who have the leading roles in this production?

(OK) Who have been appointed director and stage manager?

(OK) Who are playing Macbeth and Banquo?

(Note: It is acceptable in Am.Eng. to say, "Who is playing Macbeth and
Banqou?" (TIME IS NOW!) The answer goes something like, Jack R. is playing
MacBeth and Jill S. is playing Banqou. It is also an acceptable place to use a
modal indicating a future time.....Who will be playing ...(Time is
LATER-future)

To be more precise, I would ask, "Who are the actors that are playing
Macbeth and Banqou?"

Me

Hi Jeff
Thanks for taking the trouble to express personally how you look at the verb in
these sentences.
I'm OK where you say you are, too. But
adding 'will' suggests there's a problem using 'play' after 'who'. 'the duets'
suggests plurality and so 'who play...' is fine, to my mind.

You say: It is acceptable in Am.Eng. to say, "Who is playing Macbeth and
Banqou?" (TIME IS NOW!) The answer goes something like, Jack R. is playing
MacBeth and JillS. is playing Banqou. It is also an acceptable place to use a
modal indicating a future time.....Who will be playing ...(Time is
LATER-future)

But while the substitutions are acceptable to me as alternate structures, the
question: whether or not 'play' is acceptable after 'who' still remains.

I think who can follow a plural verb.Who are going to meet the principal
is as correct as who is going to meet the principal.I think there is no strict
rule prohibiting the use of a plural verb after who unlike what.What is usually
considered singular.What is being done? who was killed in the accident or who
were killed in the accident?both are possible.

But the fact is most native speakers do not use grammatically correct
sentences all the time.I asked two native female English teachers "Are you
Married"One of them said "neither of us are married"? I
jocularly said, "do native speakers speak English like this.The speaker immediately
replied that what he spoke was wrong but most native speakers speak that
way.Since usage is more important than grammar "Who' may be followed by a
singular verb but it is not grammatically wrong to use a plural verb after who.

WHY and other interrogative pronouns require a complement. The
complement determines the number of the verb.

Why is the sky blue? (singular)
Why are the students tired? (plural)
Who are they? (plural)
Who is he? (singular)
What is he doing? (singular)
What are they doing? (plural)
What are you doing? (plural form for all YOUs)
In the occasion that the complement is not provided, the singular form is
used.
Who is coming to the party? They are.

So most of the native speakers and grammarians feel that who without a
complement is considered singular just like what.Let us come to a consensus
that Interrogatives pronouns themselves cant take a plural verb unless they are
followed by a plural complement'.Any how, the usage of native speakers is final
on the contentious issues like this.
What is this?
what are those?
but What is being done?
Who are they?.
but Who is coming tomorrow?O.K

In the novels quoted, these appear as spoken by ‘educated’ characters:
1. “Pictures can be misleading, no?” Zackheim gave him a questioning
look.
2. “You didn’t even want him as a client.”
“But now I have him, no?”
Robert Ludlum’s The Ambler Warning
3. ‘I always bring lots of fruit on a mission. Much nicer than rations,
no?’
Andy McDermott’s Empire of Gold
4. Jack Rogan’s The Collective
“I know, Rachel. I know. But I can hope, right?”
“And by ‘terrorism’, we generally mean Islamic terrorists. Correct?”
‘I’m sure I told you this story, right?’
Sean Black’s Lock Down
5. Your family is friends with the CEO’s family, right?
Sounds great, no?
Steve Berry’s The Venetian Betrayal

These expressions appear in today's fiction by famous writers whose pieces are
gone through with a fine tooth comb by editors of famous publishing
houses.

If this reflects commonness, can’t ‘isn’t it?’ or ‘is it?’ be acceptable as
well?

English is changing. That's what it does. It ain't the same thing in
different parts of the world.
To be sure, it's not the same thing in different parts of England. That's what
dialect is, ain't it?
I must confess it's hard to keep up, yeah? Especially when you're my age and
forget half of what you learn.
Still, that's what keeps it challenging and by definition, interesting.
It is also why I think the way we teach it sometimes needs to catch up too before
us old fogies get left behind.

Using "no" as a question tag is unusual and I would never
teach it - it's not yet standard English.
Using "right" or "correct" are more common in speech but
they are very colloquial again I would not encourage second language learners
to use them.

Whether or not we like the usage we must prepare students for when they
encounter them even if we may discourage their use.
It is like teaching students to recognise historical English in Shakespeare or
a Jane Austin novel

Me

Top
contributor

I've found all the three expressions in novels written by American and
British fiction writers.

I feel 'no' in the examples I've cited doesn't sound negation as someone
suggested elsewhere but rather are equivalent to 'can't they', 'don't I',
'aren't they'.

'Isn't it' is the question tag is in wide currency as one-all purpose tag among
literate Indians, (and if I'm not mistaken, the regular tag among 'educated'
Indians) obviously under the influence of mother tongue tags, and if 'no',
'right' or 'correct' are acceptable in place of the grammatically correct
question tags, why not 'isn't it (true that...)?

OK, Kolipaka, but the question is whose mouth does the writer put the
remarks into? Whether the character is educated or not I think their use
implies foreignness. I've always thought of the use of "no" as a
question tag as a transference error typical of Spanish speakers.

Me

Stephen, definitely into 'educated ones' mouths' even if they were Italian,
French etc. living in America or England. The fact that the writers do use
these as part of dialogues of people from different nationalities originally
points to their usage as common.

Hence my question about "'isn't it (true that ...)" as a genuine
question tag. Especially by a very large section of users of English in the
world.

I have the feeling that "for" is only used meaning
"because" in Journalese, jocular style, poetry or archaic English.
e.g. Tony Blair (for it is he) as in Private Eye. For I have thought thee fair
and sworn thee bright/ as in Shakespeare's sonnet.My Love is as a Fever.
Since/because/as are much more natural for this meaning.

"I left a message for you were out" - in standard English this use is
impossible; it is only used in some dialects.

"I left a message since you were out" - two possibilities : (1) I
left the message after you had gone out; (2) having learnt/discovered you went
out - and because of that - I left a message.

"I left a message as you were out" - two possibilities : (1) at the
same time as you went out I left a message; (2) I left a message because of the
exact reason that you went out (probably you should have left the
message).

"I left a message because you were out" - (1) I came to see you, but
you were out, so I left a message (I left a message - the reason for doing so
was that you were out); (2) You were supposed to leave the message, but yo were
out, so I did it instead.

Rod's example "I left a message for you were out"; isn't
exactly impossible, just improbable from a native speaker because the "for
you" completes the sentence "I left a message for you." and the
mind of the listener has to jerkily change gear to reinterpret "for"
and to pick up its new meaning once "were out." is added to the
phrase.
A native speaker, I think, would automatically avoid it.

The other point is a question of register or formality: If "I left
a message for you were out" sounds odd it is also partly because the
banality of the subject renders it unsuitable.
"Thou shalt not abuse the grammar of the language for God's vengeance will
fall upon those who do." looks OK and "because, or as, wouldn't be in
the right style for the context.
It doesn't have to be quite as dramatic as that: "The thief will have his
hand cut off, for that is the practice in his country." is all right too
and yet, viewed purely from the point of view of syntax each of these is
similar to "I left a message for you were out".

"I left a message as you were out" - two possibilities : (1) at the
same time as (DURING THE TIME) you WERE out I left a message; (2) I left a
message because of the exact reason that you went out (probably you should have
left the message).

"In standard English this use is impossible; it is only used in
some dialects."

"Dialect" is the important word here - "register" should
also be added - not everything that appears in written English (or spoken for
that matter) is "Standard English", and we as native speakers,
according to our life experiences (level of education, religious upbringing,
and so on) have a much wider use and acceptance of what is OK and not OK in
English than the "narrowish" Standard English".

Both of Mark's examples are special, one in being ultimately from the King
Jame's version of the bible - essentially Elisabethan English, and so from
around 400 years ago, and also it was a translation of the Latin/Greek/Hebrew
versions, and at times apparently a little too word-for-word.

Having said that, "for" in older English was much more common for the
concept of "because", though normally mosty commonly with
"that" or an equivalent relative. It showed the concept of
"because" when abstractly looking towards/at the cause, whereas
"because" was looking at the concept of "because" when the
"cause" was the cause of the result:

She is hungry because of working so hard for so long this morning (< by
cause of).

She is hungry for food : She is hungry, for she will eat. (will in older
English meant "wants")

In the evolution of Modern English, "because" has become generalised
as the standard word, while "for" has only been kept in archaic
phraseology (including poetry) and in dialect. That is why we teach Spanish
speakers (in particular - though also others) that we can't really use
"for" for because.

("The thief shall have his hand cut off, for that is the practice in his
country" - "shall" probably is better in this example).

umesh sharma National Cordinator at British
Institute of Spoken English

Top Contributor

Me

All said and done, let's see what we have:

I’ve taken possession of my house. (=building) (not ‘home’ here)
He works from home. (house is not possible here)
We’re approaching our home/house. (here both are possible)
Let’s have the party at my house (here ‘home’ possible?)
My house isn’t far off from here. (‘home’ possible here?)
Be quiet or you’ll wake the whole house. (home is not possible)
We’re moving house (=going to live in a different one) (how do Americans say
this?)
As we approached the house, it began to rain. (someone else’s)
Most households now own at least one car. (home or house possible here?)

Complicated? / complicating?

You’re complicating matters. (correct)
The English language is complicated / complicating (?)
The English language is complicating learning (correct?)

There is no difference, its only an ideology inflicted on other cultures
that have no perception of the meaning. Dwelling and Clan.

Me

Frank's comment 'no difference' is valid in the case of Indian languages
where in day-to-day communication only one word (of there may be other words
not used and found only in literary circles) for both 'house' and 'home'. For
instance, Thamizh has 'veedu' for both.

The distinction may be a distinctive feature characterising the English
language. I'd be interested to know if there is this thought difference say in
German, French or Japanese or Chinese.

Me

Can I add, with your permission, 'even with family around' to your
enquiry, Samia?

I added this to your question because I did, as my wife and all our four
daughters and sons-in-law and all our grandchildren did, when we visited
temples, we enjoyed taking bath in a private waterfalls and enjoyed bird
watching, singing and dancing, even meditating in an 'ashram'. More than
touring places, it's the 'togetherness' that mattered most, not the hotel, not
the food (though they were very good)

Than you David.
Looks interesting.
I usually treat this as the four uses as go to/go to a/go to the use the a and
the which I would have covered by this stage making the differentiation less
important.
I might on reflection adapt what I do to reflect this though.

Not to belittle her at all - great stuff, important for it to be there,
and so on.The more the better.

Negatives? The confusion of putting the "a/the/zero" articles as if
they are part of the use of "go". An unfortunate linking. But she
"turned me off" when she stated talking about "exceptions".
"Go on", "go for", "go through" - and so on are
not exceptions at all, they are regular uses of those prepositions with verbs
like go. Also, like "to", they have the same type of use according to
article (a/the/zero), and so on.

The positive remark she made was telling "us" [as the student] to
develop a feeling of how to remember/know when to use go without a preposition,
and when the prepositon is there, how to know when not to use an article, or to
use a/an or the. This info came across in a vague way - but would it have been
enough for am EFL student?

What she could have done was give us those clues overtly (no article means an
uncountable, "state-like" noun/activity, and so on).

She should have split it in two - focus purely on the articles (which she does
do elsewhere), and then focus on the verb "go" and its own uses, like
:

I go home/swimming (the "destination" is a place where a prepositon
is not used, or an activity)
She went crazy : the adjective represents a state that she attains (she is
"in" the state of craziness).

I go to X - the X is my destination/goal
I go on X - the X is either the place/thing where the going is happening, or a
specific reason (like "go on holiday")
and so for other prepositions.

Obviously, everyone has their own preference. Personally I don't often
try an cover a topic in such a comprehensive fashion.
I tend to introduce the basics and then revisit it at a later date to cover the
more advanced elements.

At an early stage I usually just cover (Often with quite a limited initial
vocabulary):

One of the most common mistakes my Japanese students make is "I go to
shopping"

So, we often look at
"I go shopping."
"I go to a/the this/that/these/those his/her/ some/many etc shop/s"
(I like to use as many determiners as possible as alternatives to help the
students with the differences)

Don't get me wrong, Richard, whatever any of us write in a forum like
this with regard to the backgrounding detail is never actually how we present
the stuff in real life, just as I know that your summariation iof an excellent
lesson implies much more than just what you have "baldly" stated. And
maybe even two or three or more lessons.

This is a forum for summarising - not for going into the bits by bits of what
is a long-term teaching/learning project. Keeping in mind that English has over
60 prepositons, most (all?) of which can be used in conjunction with
"go".

I was mentioning the negatives of confusing the articles with the teaching of
"go". The articles have nothing to do with "go" - and then
the strange use of the word "exceptions" when referring to the other
prepositions.

I'm with you Rod don't worry. My comments were more addressed towards
the original few comments about the video clip.
I do realise that you are giving a more comprehensive answer and I am grateful
for that. I am jealous of your encyclopaedic knowledge. I wish I had half of
your ability. (I am certainly going to be 'borrowing' from a lot of your
answers and passing the knowledge off as my own. ahem)

I do get the feeling that in some quarters a comprehensive answer to a problem
is always expected and I think that I was just trying to suggest that sometimes
I find with students it is not always necessary to overload them too much of a
subject at any one time and that the level of the student should always be considered
as a priority.

This explains why I introduce topics which such basic and familiar vocabulary.
It is purely to keep the new data to a minimum while a student comes to terms
with the mechanics.

It is never good to overload anyone - not even students - at one
moment.

Start off small, and build up, because at each stage of the build-up, the
actual new material will be small in amount with regard to what the students
already know - and will build on that. Enough to challenge, not enough to
overwhelm.

One of the oldest tenets of language teaching from the 1890s from the
establishment of the Direct Method (the direct ancestor of the Communicative
Approach etc.).

With reference to the video - I see you waht you mean now.

Though, of course, such videos are more "reference" than real
teaching tools, in that Rebecca didn;t really ask for student intereaction of
any kind, merely stated "patterns" and suggestions of how to remember
the patterns.

One thing struck me about the answer the lady gave for the last but one
sentence in the exercise: go to the doctor but then the advice could also take
'a': go to a doctor; in other words, there can be a choice depending what the
speaker wants to convey: go to some doctor to get treatment or go to the doctor
the listener usually goes to.

I wonder why she didn't point this out.

Me

'I go shopping' is how natives say it. We Indians tend to add 'to' or
'for' after the verb and students (learning English as another language) wonder
what's wrong with the addition because in Thamizh we say to the question 'where
are you going?': 'I go to shop' or 'I'm going to buy dress/ things/ grinder/
provisions.'

Why natives don't use a preposition and why we use a preposition are just not
debatable is what I used to tell my students.

It is why she should not have even mentioned the patterns of "go"
with the articles - it is a complete red herring, makes the discussion too
complex - and implies a direct relationship that does not exist in any
way.

It is a red herring because all verbs have exactly the same relationship with
their direct or the prepositonal phrase that follows where the use of the
articles are concerned; this has nothing to do with the verb itself.

"I go shopping/skiing/swimming/sun-bathing/sky-diving/hunting"

The verb "go" does not need "to" (or another preposition)
in this because we are not referring to going to a place (or whatever) in order
to do the activity. The activity is the activity we are doing while going - and
also the activity that our going will end up doing.

"I go hunting" : I leave home in order to go hunting - arrive at the
hunting area and I am still going hunting - and then I go through the hunting
area hunting.

"Hunting" shows we are talking about the activity itself - we are not
talking about the moving to the place.

In older English there was a prepositons, but it was not "to" - it
was "on". "On" shows continuation of activity (he is on
business, he went on talking), and what has happened in Modern English (but
tyhis started already in Old English) was that where the activity focus was
clear, "on" tended to become unstressed, pronounced "a",
and then disaapear.

In some dialects of English, the "a" ias still used - and in song
styles like Country and Western influenced by local dialects. Perhaps the most
well known song known by English speaking people is this one:

A hunting we will go,
A hunting we will go,
Hi-ho the derry-oh
A hunting we will go.

The older "We go on hunting" (using Modern English spelling for what
was pretty different in Old English) became "we go a' hunting" -
which is now "we go hunting".

In Modern English we only use "on" in this construction to highlight
continuation:

At midday they halted for lunch and a rest, and then at around 3 they went on
hunting.

Folding your arms can give the impression you are "closed
down". Pacing up and down like a caged tiger can get on students' nerves.
But we all have to have mannerisms that our students can have a laugh
imitating.

This member hasn’t allowed communication from me regarding using his
comments in my blog. But I’m using this as an exception because this contains
excellent into to young teachers.

I fully agree with Alexander St-John that body language is not
universal: it is both idiosyncratic and cultural.

There are two aspects to body language in the classroom that tend to feed off
each other: there is the body language produced by the teacher; and there is
the body language produced by the learners.

Sometimes the intention of the message behind the body language differs from
the perception of the message in that body language by the audience (whether
learners or teacher).

Below I offer a list of thirty examples of body language that I have observed
in classrooms and have used in professional development sessions. Some are
positive and some are negative. Whether positive or negative, teachers need to
be aware that the opposite of each target body language typically sends the opposite
message. You may, of course, agree or disagree with my interpretations. The
first element is the body language, the second is the message [the possible
interpretation by the audience].

A glazed look in the eyes of the learners certainly tells you that you
have lost them.

Other body language behaviours that seem to have different currencies in
different cultures include:

Crossing your arms or legs might make you seem nervous or afraid, and it
might make it seem you have something to hide. It might also be insulting in
some cultures.

Staring at people or excessive eye-contact might put people off. It can
be very threatening. By all means maintain eye contact but do not stare. If you
are talking to a group of learners or a whole classroom of learners, give them
all some eye contact to make a better connection and to check if they are
listening. On the other hand, giving no eye-contact might make you seem
insecure or nervous or unsure of what you are talking about.

In the classroom, teachers should not keep their eyes on the floor or on
the nearest learners; it will make them seem insecure and unsure. Teachers need
to scan the whole classroom with their head up straight and eyes if not towards
the horizon to include the back of the room.

Personal space can be a problem with body language. Different cultures
and individuals within those cultures have different perceptions of physical
distance. Teachers should be careful about standing too close to learners as
this can send out the wrong massage. Everybody gets put off and even threatened
by a close-up speaker. Learners need to have their personal space, so do not
invade it.

The teacher should not be afraid to take up personal space by sitting or
by standing with your legs apart; this shows self-confidence. If you want to
show that you’re confident in yourself and relaxed lean back a little. If you
want to show that you are interested in what someone is saying, lean toward the
learner, but don’t lean in too much or you might seem desperate for approval.
On the other hand, if you lean back too much or you might seem arrogant and
distant.

Teachers need to smile and laugh: learners will listen to you if you
seem to be a positive person. Smiling and laughing can be positive but can be a
sign of nerves or ingratiation. Teachers should not laugh at their own jokes or
laugh to excess, because it makes them seem nervous and needy. And they should not
keep a smile on their face all the time, or they will seem insincere or
supercilious.

yawning!
Seriously though, I think you need to differentiate between the body language
of an odd student and the cumulative impression you get from the group.
If you have an individual showing negative signs you need to file this away for
monitoring and further investigation. Some students will be virtually impossible
to engage and in a group there is only so much one person can do.
If a large part or the whole group however is showing signs of boredom, lack of
understanding or both the red lights should be flashing and bells should be
sounding in your head. Your class is failing and something needs addressing
quickish.
The main thing I suggest is go with your instincts. Body language is just that.
Instinctive.

I've been thinking overnight that perhaps the problem is that we insist
on trying to be inclusive rather than realistic. Differentiation is like an
elastic band. Put enough strain on it and it will snap. You cannot teach a
large class of students each on their own individual course. They have to join
in and keep up with the program. If they cannot they need to join smaller
groups where a little more teacher time can be allotted to their personal
needs. If they need one to one then that's fine as long as the student, parent
and company understand that I work to the students speed not to a target plan
set from outside. If that is what you are instructed to do then you might as
well go back and struggle in the large group!

Finally I teach structures over vocabulary. We learn a structure and then how
to add vocabulary to that structure. This is the students responsibility. How
much they are able to develop their speaking will depend on how much they are
able to or wish to study. The advantage however is that all the students get
the base structure as a foundation for whatever they decide to do with it
later.

Even if they can only use one or two verb and object eg "I play
tennis." they learn the determiners, the pronouns, the tenses, the modals,
the extra information of where, when how etc. They learn to join sentences,
phrase and clauses to make more complicated sentences. They learn how to make
positive negative and question forms. And so on, but all with the minimum of
core vocabulary.

Then it's up to them. Can they add new vocabulary? If they learn the
vocabulary I will show them how to implement it. If not... The student needs to
understand the responsibility for their own learning.

I will do the best I can for any of my students. The student then needs
to do their best for themselves to get the most from their learning.

As for special educational needs. They need small group or one to one
learning and they need realistic targets to suit them and them alone. If you,
the parents or your superiors insist on trying to fit them into 'The program'
then best of luck to you and shame on those managing you.

Yes, teachers: Set a good example. (And have fun while doing it, knowing
that every little bit helps.)
though I agree there's a certain amount of instinct, think twice before acting,
even if you go with the instinctive decision.

Me

Learner silence when asked to respond, body supported by the arm,
sending SMS, quick favourable learner body language (don't you believe this!),
knowing smiles, quick exchange of glances etc. are some telltale signs teachers
should take note of and take repair steps (damage control) before learners are
lost to teachers.

For me, the growing treatment of education, particularly Higher Education, as a
business that is focused less on learning (whether it is theoretical or
practical knowledge) and more on holding up a piece of paper that reflects
attribution (which people rarely check on) bothers me. I see this in China -
the students that roll in have forgotten (or have never been told) what
learning is and are more concerned with the grades than the abilities they are
supposed to gain as those grades will result in accreditation for abilities
they do not (in many cases) possess. The kids are brought in and fired through
the system like machines off an assembly line (and yes, some of them SHOULD be
recalled), and the rumblings from the West seem to be saying the same thing to
me.

Students associate the degree with job opportunities - not the courses, not the
knowledge, not the skills - the degree, that piece of paper, and so much so
that we have glutted the market with people who have made the run from
Bachelor's to Master's to Doctorate without practical, real-world experience,
relevant knowledge or any application of these skills, and we expect them to
lead us into the future. It's sad really, and that to me is what needs to be
changed.

Education should be about learning skills, knowledge, and more importantly,
being able to apply them, not about flooding the market with people holding up
documents that say they can do something (but never really test them on). To
quote Russell Hunt,

"This is the situation we've built for our students: a system in which the
only incentives or motives anyone cares about are marks, credits, and
certificates. We're not entirely responsible for that -- government policies
which have tilted financial and social responsibility for education
increasingly toward the students and their families have helped a lot -- but
the crucial factor has been our insistence, as a profession, that the only
motivation we could ever count on is what is built into the certification process."

The flip side of this of course is that while students want
marks/credits/certificates (instead of knowledge, skills and abilities) because
these (the paper evaluations) will get jobs, Educational Institutions tout
higher education as a practical move because it will generate higher income for
educated people (what a wonderful sales pitch), but that isn't necessarily true
anymore (a basic understanding of the laws of supply and demand can illustrate
this wonderfully, or The Globe and Mail's article "Who Will Hire All the
PhD's - Not Canada's Universities" or The Economist "Doctoral Degrees
- The Disposable Academic"), and to be honest, this bugs me.

Too many students come through my door buying the message about education but
not caring about the process because education as a business doesn't really
care about the end result for the students so much as the bottom line for their
ledgers. As Universities continue to focus on the business models that will
push more and more students (and their money) through University doors and out
the other end with a shiny piece of paper (but not necessarily the skills the
paper implies they have) in return, we are losing something important.

I don't know - maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm cynical, but to me, education
institutions need to focus on teaching tangible and applicable skills (and the
theory behind them), not pushing as many students through the doors as
possible.

Anarchists will tell you it's the very nature of institutions, gov'ts and
corporations (literally 'bodies') to serve themselves before any other need. In
being ex-communicated from the priesthood for criticizing the Church's
complicity with American imperialism in turning subsistence economies into market
economies, Ivan Illich critiqued not the Church nor America but the institution
they were mutually establishing in such regions to serve their ends:
schools:

"Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the
schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once
these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the
better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby
"schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with
education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say
something new. His imagination is "schooled" to accept service in
place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for
the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise
for national security, the rat race for productive work. Health, learning,
dignity, independence, and creative endeavor are defined as little more than
the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their
improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of
hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question."

I smiled the other day when I fact checked an ELT forum comment written this
year where someone claimed a particular M.A. TESL was $20,000. In fact it was
$28,000--even online it was more: $24,000. Given that a CELTA costs $3,000, a
DELTA about $5,000, and a B.Ed about $6,000, is it not surprising that those
who've completed the MA TESOL express the desire to additionally do a DELTA to
pick up actual 'teaching skills'? Sort of tells you the value of credentials.
I'm wondering how many of those in the Middle East would actually be able to
distinguish an M.A TESOL from a DELTA holder with equivalent teaching.
experience?

Accountability, including assessment and evaluation. Is it just me or do others
feel this is where many private schools fall far short of the mark? For
example, the inflexibility of course pacing serves schools more than it does
students. Why do students have to pay 100s to a third party for a proper
assessment of their skills? Would you trust a garage that couldn't do a
thorough examination of your car's performance?

@Alexandra: In Ontario, Canada with a
prior degree, (Do we all have one?) only 1 yr is req'd. but not for much
longer. I guess there've been complaints about the quality someone can get from
only 4 months on campus and 4 on prac. Even non-professional, skilled trades
apprenticeship programs are longer.

@Malachy: Robin's right... and doubly so for those with ed degrees----if you
read my Illich quote, this won't surprise you. In fact, it's been my experience
that Chinese management staff with business degrees or just business experience
are somewhat more capable of running a school just as those who hadn't majored
in English in college often have better English than those who have.

@Robin - Why do you think most
private educational institutions are 'pushing as many people through the doors
as possible'? Do you really think it's got anything to do with acquiring 21st
century skills or whatever the latest catchphrase/slogan is for the 'education
business'?

I'm not criticising business managers running schools just saying that's what I
would change. I would ensure that anyone running an educational institution has
at least spent time teaching in some capacity so they have a deeper
understanding of what the business really is. This deeper understanding can
only help the business, right?!?!

Now, with MOOCs taking off globally, the education industry/business is in for
some radical changes. I can already see that one of those changes will be
education moving deeper into the realm of business rather than education.
Perhaps this will be a good thing. I hope that it will. I also hope that it is
dealt with responsibly rather than just as a venture into making more money for
some of the business people leading the move. It's also very interesting to see
the number of freely available MOOCs. I think that this is like a new product
being given away freely at first to gauge interest/public opinion and get some
valuable feedback and support for the paying students. I'm wondering when will
the freely available courses start to disappear?

@Ferd - And I completely agree. I've meet many 'English teachers' with
seriously questionable English language skills. I have also met many very
wonderful, talented and committed teachers who 'learn their trade' in the
private language schools before stepping into the better off public school
systems.

I can only speak intelligently about China on that one - the private
institutions here have a reputation and it doesn't matter what the results are,
so long as parents can tell people "My child went to..."

This goes for private schools as well as pei xun ji gou (additional training
schools - similar to Korean Hagwons or Western Private Tutoring labs) - they
charge huge fees but many of the parents don't care about the results, so long
as the kid walks out with a certificate.

From a business position, it makes sense - again, I go back to Hunt's comments
on cheating:

"If I wanted to learn how to play the guitar, or improve my golf swing, or
write HTML, "cheating" would be the last thing that would ever occur
to me. It would be utterly irrelevant to the situation. On the other hand, if I
wanted a certificate saying that I could pick a jig, play a round in under 80,
or produce a slick Web page (and never expected actually to perform the
activity in question), I might well consider cheating (and consider it
primarily a moral problem). "

For these businesses, they "cheat" because they are not interested in
the education aspect but the business aspect - you can reconsider the above
comment in terms of a company actually producing in the education field.

Coming back to your question - do I think it has anything to do with skills?
Not at all. It's profit driven, particularly in China where the end results
don't matter. The rule here (at the Uni level) is that no one fails because it
looks bad for the school and they are not interested in actually teaching these
"troubled students." There is no impetus to actually teach or test
the students on anything, so long as it *looks* like we're teaching or testing,
which is why everyone is given a leg up and essentially passed (because it is
going to happen anyway). There is little drive to keep strong teachers here
either - if they want to stay, great, if not, there are plenty more where they
come from.

I agree that there needs to be some educational experience - the best
businesses are the ones where the leadership has a foundational understanding
of the product being sold. But for me, I think the focus should be education
guided by effective business principles, not business with a little education
tossed in.

Perhaps if it was handled a little more subtlely here in China, I wouldn't be
so antagonistic about businessmen running schools or treating them like a
business...I don't know, hard to say. It's hard when you watch your students
become entwined in the Dunning-Kruger Effect and you can't really do much to
prevent it.

THE SALARY!!! and the way you are
seen as an EFL professional. Ageing backpacker!!!!! WHAT !!! There is a serious
need for some kind of regulatory body. Being a native speaker does NOT make you
an expert:Also anybody can open a school and rip off both students and
teachers. It´s a great pity,but there are a lot of unscrupulous characters that
infest our chosen path..... anyway I love what I do, and have been teaching for
over 40 years and I can´t see the status quo changing in the near or distant
future!

Agreed Connie - it would be nice if
there was a regulatory body or at least a proper International Association that
monitors credentials and helps legitimate schools/companies find employees. The
aging backpacker generalization aside, I've come across too many paycationing
"teachers" with degrees in Business and Asian Studies teaching
English of all things (as you say, being a Native Speaker does not make you an
expert, nor does it make one qualified to teach).

oh that i could eradicate the
degradation and humiliation of traditional teaching of language. traditional
grammar with traditional teaching method has got a deep rooted importance. we
can try to b innovative but v should not ignore TG

Ferd - don't forget the ease with
which those credentials can be forged as well - how many companies actually
CHECK said credentials?

Again, referencing my experiences in China, the companies are happy so long as
the person appears to be qualified (which means forged credentials in some
cases), which means they don't actually check the credentials. I know that
since I've been assisting in the hiring of new teachers at my Uni, they don't
check to see if the person actually has the diploma or degree (and those can be
forged too - I looked at my own after I scanned it and just shook my head - any
PS novice could erase my name and put in their own and suddenly have the same
degree as me).

The big change should be upgrading to
an English-based pronunciation guide. Truespel phonetics can be learned by
teachers and ESL's in less than an hour. Students can actually
"write" in phonetics, a huge advantage for learning and assessing
pronunciation, not only of English but other languages. Truespel is free as my
gift for noncommercial use. Seehttp://justpaste.it/course2.

That education is somehow finite. In
other words, it starts and stops with a class course or qualification. If I
could change anything then it would be perception of what learning really is.
(A series of steps in development until we die)

@Robin: The Chinese gov't in it's
recent tightening of visa req's is only compounding the problem. Even I was
tempted to fake my degree last fall when they refused to look at the
transcripts and, even official ones, in favour of the all important
certificate. It cost me much more to ship it than it would've for my university
registrar to fax official transcripts.

@Ashiq: You ought to become a teacher trainer. A curriculum itself doesn't
degrade or humiliate people so it must be the teachers where you are that are
doing that. What a tragedy!

@Thomas: Perhaps in the EU but Asians want US pronunciation for obvious
reasons.

@John Savage & Ramani P N: I'd argue that what you both say stems from that
same fundamental lack of accountability where it's not just students that are
'schooled' to mistake studying for learning. Why expect the market to deliver
what the public doesn't demand?

The Chinese gov't accepts scanned copies of documents (diplomas and
certificates), which is utterly foolish considering how easy they are to
Photoshop. We have a new teacher here who cannot get his diploma for a couple
of months (having recently graduated), but can order his transcript and have it
here in less than 7 business days - the school won't accept the transcript. The
possible fraud and chicanery that comes from this policy is problematic.

What is worse is the most recent changes (as of July 1st) that put far more
power in the hands of the schools; while trying to crack down on illegal
teachers, they have opened the door to possible abuse of legitimate
teachers.

@Robin: I've played devil's advocate
with a turf-protecting 'credentialist' on ESLcafe.com who argued a (random)
degree should and soon will become the mandatory requirement for TEFLers around
the world. But even in Canada, I doubt my degree status was ever verified.

Whoaaa! There seems to be a lot of
people here talking about qualifications!
Should we concentrate on qualifications as the route to being a good successful
teacher?
I would agree that qualifications are fairly important to teach a lot of
subject areas with technical knowledge a cornerstone of presentation. I would
argue though that a good teacher could draw on his professional experience to
deliver that piece of teaching. We would have to assume that a good teacher is
also responsible for examining the curriculum or syllabus for the necessary
pieces of personal knowledge required to present to the students (this should
be required regardless of qualification). We might expect that a good teacher
would research and study and manipulate a curriculum to achieve relevant
outcomes in their classes.
Personally, I have watched many teachers overf the years I have been in
teaching and for many of these I have been responsible for delivering some kind
of assessments, support and professional development plans and training. In so
many instances, qualifications and study has not produced adequate teachers. In
other words, the learner outcomes have not been met, the students have not been
fulfilled or methods have not been appropriate to the syllabus.
One thing I can point out, during professional development phases, qualified
teachers might be more disinterested in topics being offered and treat other developing
teachers with a touch of unfair arrogance. Whereas, teachers less well
qualified tend to contribute more to the teaching team.
I am convinced that the arguments for and against are all merited for the best
reasons. However, I do dislike reading narrow minded, finger pointing posts
that try to stereotype any particular group of people. Please remember that we
all contribute to this group because we all care and have something to offer
teaching and our students. There are times when we are all stumped by something
that happens in class regardless of the sum of our experience or our
qualifications.
On reflection, I think I might look a little deeper into this assumption that
there is a link between quality teachers and their qualifications; it seems that
there are two very clear schools of thought here; that qualified teachers are
absolutely necessary for a good teaching outcome and that qualifications aren’t
necessary to teach a subject like English. I will report back with anything I
uncover on this.

@John: Wish I could remember what
LinkedIN group and thread I saw it in but someone posted a link to a study of
ESL teachers in the US, both qualified and non-qualified and the non-qualified
performed as well if not better if I recall. Schools such as those in Asia rely
exclusively on credentials as they often hire sight unseen or lack the HR
personnel to do a Skype interview.

@Ferd. Thank you for your
recommendation, I will do my best to find this source. I am also going back
over my own observation data to see if there are any conclusions there that I
can find. I would be most grateful if any others here have links to sources of
data about this qualified/non-qualified status issue. I am constructing a
framework for testing the success of teachers based on their initial
qualifications before entering a new position. The studies I have found so far
seem to polarise into two categories. HR focus (did the recruitment process work)
or teacher development (has the teacher improved as a result of training) I
would like to bridge the gap between the two. Any suggestions?

Teachers need to be interested in
what they teach and each individual child's abilities and interests need to be
taken into account, and they need to challenge curriculums and focus on
teaching not rules regulations, policies and procedures

@Janita: I don't see the two as
distinct. If policies and procedures don't support learning, it's not an
environment conducive to learning. In my experience, issues with the curriculum
usually reflect administerial ones.

The late Stephen Covey once wrote “In the world of education, there is no lack
of creativity, passion, caring, or research as to how to create a great school,
a great classroom, or a great student. More often than not, the great barrier
to success is that the systems and processes are not in place to sustain
excellence.” To define this barrier, he borrows a term from Built to Last by
J.C. Collins and J.I. Porras from which he quotes: ‘Far and away the biggest
mistake managers make is ignoring the crucial importance of alignment.’

Progression to a higher level should not be automatic but instead based on
ability. I have had several students who failed a course, only to show up at
the next level the following semester. This, of course, messes up the whole
dynamic of the group and causes the other students to suffer.

Poor placement tests.

A placement test should reflect the actual ability of a student rather just
their technical knowledge, but still the majority of schools in Poland (maybe
elsewhere too) use a grammar based placement method without any assessment of
the students productive competence.

English lacks a reasonable phonetic
system. Neither US newspapers nor the government of US use phonetics at all,
but instead a workaround system to show pronunciation. But the fix is at hand,
truespel phonetics, a pronunciation guide notation based on US English
spelling. I'd like it to become the core phonetic intermediary spelling system
for all languages. It's mature, easily writable, free for noncommercial use and
based on the lingua franca of the world, English. Lots of work to do.

@Ferd. The teacher observation is
regular although it feels more like a formality than a chance to receive worthwhile
feedback. As far as the curriculum, it is mainly based on coursebooks.

Yes, I agree that the fast tracking is a symptom of the larger issue, but I
would say that the issue is, as was mentioned earlier, the schools are firstly
businesses and then educational institutes. So rather than risk upsetting a
student by making them repeat a year, the admin and management would rather put
the student up a year to get the extra years tuition.

I think the placement test issue may be specific to the school I was working at
most recently, but again - it is cheaper to have one multiple choice test,
which can be checked by admin staff instead of a more in-depth language
assessment involving teachers.

The most important thing that is
taught is reading. Yet in my county in Florida 20% of 3rd graders failed
reading. This is actually typical in US. So how can we fix this. A new answer in US is to teach "phonetics" in k-1, and I think
that is a good answer. But they don't know what phonetics is, let alone teach
it. No teachers are taught phonetics in US. They are taught
"phonics", because phonetic systems such as in dictionaries use
special symbols and are useless for writing. In fact the "phonetic"
system used in US is not phonetic as all - seehttp://justpaste.it/voaspell.

The answer is truespel phonetics, a
simple English based notation that has one spelling per sound based on best
English compatibility. It links all English learners in one system, and it's
designed to always remain as a pronunciation guide. (The VOA dictionary now has
truespel key). The future is to have one phonetic spelling for all languages based on
truespel. Phonetics need not be difficult anymore.

@Thomas: First implement
TrueSpell(TM) globally--get Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc to install it
on all their devices for free for instant eBook translation. Then lobby kid lit
publishers to start publishing TrueSpell(TM) editions of their entire library
starting with the lowest levels so such kids never need to read real English,
ever.

Utopian? Yes. Most of those systems fail to live up to their claims. This
summer, I showed my sister the BBC's highly popular Alphablocks video series
but in conversation, became aware of its drawbacks in early literacy /
intervention. The reason is NOT that 5 yr olds lack the abstract capacities to
analyze language input, quite the contrary---how else would they master rather
complex language skills to begin with and at such early stages? The reason
these systems fail is that children lack the language proficiency and
self-awareness to COMMUNICATE abstractly.

That link should have been http://justpaste.it/voaspel to show how pronunciation of
English is depicted in US such as by the Voice of America. -- What is
Truespell(TM)? Truespel shouldn't fail for kids by being too abstract. In fact one
argument is that it "dumbs down" phonetics and that it looks like the
way children write already. Thanks @Fred for the propagation hints. It's a long hard road, and teachers
coming out of college can say "I didn't learn truespel in college. It
can't be any good." Yet in my county about 20% of 3rd graders fail
reading. New tools are needed. In fact in some states in the past teachers were taught NOT to tell kids
that letters stand for sounds. Thankfully now with common core
"phonetics" is required in k-1

As a teacher, It's all a little bit
above me. In my world, the thing I would like to change is what we teach and
when. There are too many courses and text books that teach a phrase here, a
tense there a grammar point next and now a modal verb or two and if the
students make a connection, it's more luck than planning.

What I want is to teach in logical steps. Teach grammar in blocks.
(Don''t use one verb tense, try four to six. See how they relate to each other.
Don't learn one modal verb, learn them all. See how they relate to each other.
Don't learn 'a/an' and 'the' learn how to use this/that, these/those/ my, your,
his... some many all etc see how they relate to each other. And so it goes.)

You don't need many words to begin with. Learn how to make a sentence
and then learn to substitute. Don't over burden students with vocabulary until
they understand what to do with it. Give the students responsibility in their
own learning.(Here is a structure these are the word groups that go here now go
and learn vocabulary and start making sentences. The more you study the more
you will do. It is now up to you.)

If as a group you want to organise a logical(Oh God please let it be
logical) scheme of work that takes the student from beginner to advanced in
logical steps then great. Roll that out around the world. Then you have a
template for your text books, games, your tests and your qualifications. That's what I am doing in my little world. Whether I am doing it right.
I don't have the experience to know. My students are happy. They know what they
have studied and what is to come. The ones that study are progressing well. The
ones that don't study...at least they have the structures down.

If possible, go and live in a country where the language you are
learning is spoken, and even then it's not a guarantee such a thing will
happen. Speaking a language not only requires knowing it's logic,lexis etc...
it also requires a decent knowledge of the culture from which it eminates, and
it's quite difficult to immerse yourself in such a culture from a
distance.

Even then, it's no guarantee you'll ever achieve such a goal, which will, if
you do achieve it, take years to reach. I've lived in Russia for a few years,
for example. I understand everything people say, I can read a novel from start
to finish like I can in English, I can write and speak without making many
mistakes and I have an idiomatic vocabulary, but things such as local humour still
confuse me at times, because I'm not from here.

Yes. I think the only way to speak like native speakers is to try to
practice as much as you can. After certain age the vocal cords become less
flexible thus it is not possible to have native like pronunciation. With regard
to fluency, according to the critical period hypthesis all languages are stored
in one part of the brain before buberty. However, after that the nativr
language is stored in one part of the brain and the second language is stored
in another place. Therefore, nativelike fluency is also not possible.
consequently you can get native like fluency by intensive practice.

Owner and Principal at The Whittaker Group-accent modification and
communication expert

It is important to have as much interaction as possible with native
English speakers- both in work settings as well as social situations.
This can include book clubs, Parent-Teacher organizations, sports clubs, etc.,
conversation groups at local schools and libraries, etc.
Our Rules By The Sound online platform is also an excellent way to practice
pronunciation, stress and intonation, vocabulary, voice projection, phrasing
and rate, and more.
You can try it for free at: www.eslrules.com. We also have newsletters, blogs,
video lessons, and numerous resources for teachers and students in our
archives. Contact us at:'info@eslrules.com if you have any questions.
Marjorie

The key word is 'fluently'. Yes, it is very possible. I'm an example.
But if the adverb refers to 'accuracy', as is understood by participants here,
then my response is 'not necessary'.

For the latter purpose, there can be nothing better than 'immersion' in a live
society''; in fact it's the only solution.

If you tried it from a 'distance' as Daniel put it--in your country, it would
at best be 'aping' which can more often than not sound funny--at least to local
people--and for which there is no necessity for a non-native as pointed out by
several experts.

I refer here to two such experts: E.W.F. Tomlin (English Teaching Forum, 14, 2
(April--June 1974) and Braj B Kachru (English Teaching Forum, 15, 3 (July
1977). And in my opinion, there may not have been any change in such stance.

I would say that fluency at a "native" level and accuracy are
interconnected, given that a foreigner who has a "native" command of
a foreign language (i.e. above C2, although I can only really judge regarding
Russian, where the native level proficiency exam is equivalent to that) is
judged to be someone who speaks like an educated native speaker, who at least
when speaking anyway, don't tend to make many mistakes.

It also requires an accurate knowledge of register, which may actually make you
better than some natives (I don't have a native level of Russian, for example,
but I have often corrected the use of register of some of my past translation
clients in e-mails, for example. As a mater of fact, I would also add that some
native English speakers would fail CPE for this very reason.) In fact, I would
say many people who have such a command of a language, in terms of pure knowledge,
actually speak better than your average native speaker (a well-known British
entrepreneur in Moscow, John Warren is a good example of such a person.)

As regards to 'aping' native speakers, at the end of the day isn't that what we
kind of do anyway when we speak another language by virtue of the fact that we
learn the language they speak and as such they are examples for us. I mean we
won't necessarily speak exactly like them or that everyone should or wants to
"copy" their speech, but in the materials which people use to study
foreign language the people in the dialogues they listen to, who write the
texts they read are in most cases native speakers and as such they provide some
sort of a benchmark for a learner to ape, be it in terms of grammar, vocabulary,
pronunciation or whatever.

Therefore, people may not be consciously copying a native speaker and aping
them, but they are following a benchmark set by a native without explicitly
realising it.

This expectation relates to many factors. The age at which a student is
exposed to English, the amount and manner of practice, and the student's
motivation are important. While there is little hope that an older student will
sound like a native speaker, I have met adult learners who communicated very
easily and accurately in English. I believe that every speaker, native or
otherwise, constructs a grammar within the language's grammar. Some adult
learners construct personal grammars that exceed some native speakers. With due
respect to the limitations suggested by the critical age hypothesis, I would
tell the student that some non-native speakers have become fluent and eloquent
in the English language.

Good point, Richard. There are native speakers of English all over the
world. I think a good follow up question would be to ask why he/she wants to
speak English like a native speaker and next, what does he/she understand a
native speaker to be. Does he/she want to "blend in", to integrate
with an English speaking society, that is, to go and live in one? Native
speakers in Mississippi and Sydney sound widely different of course. The above
question needs unpacking.

I had a 10 year old tell me that she wanted to speak fluent English.
Whilst she is unable to immerse herself in English, at her age she has many
opportunities to expose herself to it through music, tv and the internet. I
told her to make the most of it as she was so motivated, but without her
parents support, I think she will struggle to remain motivated. Ten may be a
young age, but the road ahead for her will be a long one.

Jo, give your student biographies of people who mastered English. There
are hundreds of people who have learned. I met a 50 year old factory woman in
China whose English was conversational and fluent, albeit with some
fossilization. She taught herself using videos and self-study guides available
on China. I think the motivation is hers, rather than her parents', and if you
give her examples, she can succeed.

For a 10 yr old I don't think you need to get too complicated. Exposure
is good. Fun and games are good. What she needs is someone to be with her while
she learns. When a child reads, all they need is someone to correct their
mistakes. When a child learns through play, they just need someone to play
with. (My son and I were playing monopoly and scrabble in basic forms at 5-6),When
they watch T.V. they just need someone to find the correct program and sit with
them.
The difference between native and non-native is 'time' and 'someone'

(If you have the time, I think Monopoly is a great learning tool in fact if I
remember right we crated a different game with the pieces where you bought and
sold vocabulary in the form of verbs, nouns and adjectives etc and made money
by selling and developing sentences)

For a 10 yr old I don't think you need to get too complicated. Exposure
is good. Fun and games are good. What she needs is someone to be with her while
she learns. When a child reads, all they need is someone to correct their
mistakes. When a child learns through play, they just need someone to play
with. (My son and I were playing monopoly and scrabble in basic forms at
5-6),When they watch T.V. they just need someone to find the correct program
and sit with them.
The difference between native and non-native is 'time' and 'someone'

(If you have the time, I think Monopoly is a great learning tool in fact if I
remember right we crated a different game with the pieces where you bought and
sold vocabulary in the form of verbs, nouns and adjectives etc and made money
by selling and developing sentences)

This is a good oportunity to show implicitly that a teacher is not the
only source of knowledge and to encourage students look for the meaning of the
word in the e-dictionary. Using ICT in the classroom may be so helpful!

I do the same as Gordon (not that it happens that often - most of my
students have electronic dictionaries).

What is more important though is to say the word doesn't exist. We had one
teacher from San Diego who would get into arguments with students by correcting
their pronunciation or telling them the word they used didn't exist because she
was not familiar with alternative (read: British) pronunciation or had never
heard the word before, and then she'd get mad when they would argue with her
and tell her she was wrong (her fall back - I'm the native speaker here). She
made herself look foolish on more than one occasion, and served as a lesson to
current teachers about being aware of the limits of your knowledge.

There's nothing wrong in admitting not knowing the meaning of a word; in
fact, students will respect you for it (though some may express their glee with
knowing side glances). But be ready with your response next time you meet them.

I agree- use it as a teaching moment, showcase your composure, and be a
role model for your students. Are we expected to know and understand every word
in the English language?
Thank them for introducing you to a new word. Ask if anyone in the class has
heard the word before, etc. Start a list of novel words to add to personal
notebooks, etc. Incorporate it into an assignment.. Create a "stump the
teacher day!"

Anyone who won't admit to not knowing something is headed for
trouble.
It's a good chance to learn something new.
Have a little game of call my bluff (give them three possibilities and let them
choose one before going to the dictionary.)

On occasion, I like to use word substitution exercises to help them
learn new vocabulary.
For example. If you have a sentence with a meaning we understand but a word we
don't.

"Elizabeth, as they drove along, watched for the first appearance of
Pemberly Woods with some perturbation; and when at length they turned in at the
lodge her spirits were in high flutter."

Pride an prejudice.

So we want to know what perturbation means.
We can gather from the paragraph Elizabeth's feelings (focus on the phrase
"her spirits were in high flutter") so now we find a word to
substitute while keeping the meaning the same.

So we come up with
perturbation probably means: excitement, agitation, anxiousness etc

Finally we check our meanings to see if we were right with our assessment and
look at the possibilities.

All this is long hand for what native speakers do instinctively when reading
and is a good skill to learn. It teaches the student to have an educated guess
as to the meaning of a word using the clues around them. This will speed up
reading and reduces the need to dash for the dictionary every five minutes.
(When was the last time you looked at a dictionary when reading a book?)

Time well spent on an underestimated skill which with care can be used at any
level

You also notice how I am, with the last two examples coincidentally, creating
ways of avoiding the need to admit ignorance straight off.

But why would you?
I wouldn't. Not for lower intermediate.
Come back to this later folks when you're ready.

If they can't get the meaning from you or a -language- to English dictionary, I
should put it to one side. I have no qualms about saying "You are not
ready for this yet." Whatever the level.
Otherwise everything is up for grabs.

Regarding the original question, when I wrote an answer in a course
essay saying in effect that I would indeed say I don't know, I'll get back to
you, My tutor wrote a comment along the lines of "Your students will
expect you to know."

Well I Didn't take any real notice of that. I didn't know the answer at
that time and I would still tell the students "I don't know, I'll get back
to you."

However the difficulties students have understanding these nuances is real and
although it's a diversion from the original question I suppose I will continue
to play devils advocate as I would be interested to see what others think(And
it was my New Year Resolution).
You may choose your own examples or may indeed think you should never say such
a thing. but at what point, if ever, do you say to a student or group of
students. You really are not ready for this yet.
Is that really patronising or an honest assessment? Can you really be honest
with your students? Remember we started talking about lower intermediate but we
could extend that to any level.
(Obviously after class or one to one is a different situation and doesn't apply
as I always willing to give the students as much individual help as time or my
ability allows.)
It's a fun way to get the new year rolling.

This has happened quite a bit for me as many of my students have
attained an extremely high level due to their professions as translators,
English teachers, lawyers, nurses and so on. What I say usually depends on why
I think I am unfamilar with the word....

For higher level learners, I may say:
- I've heard it before, but never looked it up - let's do it now (or I'll get
back to you)
- it's an uncommon word that I've come across in my reading but as I understood
it broadly in context and I never stopped to define it. You look in your
e-dictionary while I check the paper dictionary - let's compare what they
say.
- it's probably specific to your field (medical or legal register, etc) and as
I am not involved in that field, I have not yet had a need to learn it in my
life experience. Can you explain it's use in your field?
- it's possibly American (etc) slang or a localised idiom
- it's obviously a word that is used infrequently - let's look it up and find a
more common synonym that may be useful for us to use
and so on.

I've known teachers who over-use this as a technique-"I don't know!
Let's Google-search it!' even when they do know. Outside an esp context it's
probably fairly rare that a native speaker would be in that position..

Never attend your class unprepared. If a student asks you the meaning of
a particular word uneexpextedly and you do not know the meaning, ask the
student how is the word used in the sentence, with that you would be able to
apply your knowledge in context clue.

Then you are cleverer men than I am. I sorry I don't have unlimited
knowledge so I will continue to admit my failings when confronted with
something I don't know or can't do. This extends into my knowledge of grammar,
mistakes I sometimes make in punctuation, and dealing with people.

If it´s boring for me, I assume it´s boring for my students. I
always transform some of the exercises into games, may change the order of
activities or skip them and do something else instead. I use lots of my own
resources. I design games and worksheets to work with songs or short film
segments (you may want to check this outhttp://eltgoestothemovies.blogspot.com/).

I also agree. Besides, one has to really enjoy grammar in order to teach
it. One thing is certain though, grammar may well be a fantastic stepping stone
that will take us as far as we want to go. At least, that's how it's worked for
me (as a student).

Right, grammar is part of the language. The thing is that some may not
like spinach so we need to dress it well and trim it. Say you have to practise
conditional sentences, why don’t we play a customized Rummy instead of asking
students to write sentences? Games make us use the target language for a
purpose different from practice itself. They catch our attention so naturally
that students make a bigger effort to concentrate and memorize because they
want to win. Is it bad?

But what happens when you are teaching on a One-on-One basis, a young
executive at 7 in the morning? You have to change the whole strategy!
Yes, games work for groups of almost any age and here I would like to ask you
for your valuable feedback. Truly speaking, what do you do when you are
teaching the 7 o'clok class, the student is a 35 year old executive who is
learning English because he/she wants to climb his/her way up in ther
organization?

I´ve been teaching adults all my career, mostly on a one-on-one basis.
I´ve never started earlier than 7.30 though. = ) I use games with my students,
the only difference is that I explain why I use them. Adults need to know. I
obviously have to design games that involve a little luck so they can win too,
for example, the Rummy I mentioned, or games that involve certain abilities I
may or may not have such as visual memory.

I´ve designed one to practise mixed types. I divided the cards in
3-somes. One with the word if, and 2 with verb phrases. You play Rummy as usual
except that you have to make sentences in a loud voice instead of just matching
the cards. = )

I am absolutely in favour of games as a teaching tool for all aspects of
English. There are a couple of great books on the theme: "Grammar
Games" and "More Grammar Games". But as has been said,
circumstances may put limitations on what you can do. A middle-aged company
director "... didn't spend (his) valuable time and money on playing games.
Let's get some real work done!" I have lost clients by trying to be too
creative in my one-on-one classes.
Also, when working for large language schools, there is often very little time
for extra activities. The students pay for a course, and the group has 10 weeks
with 3 classes per week and they expect to complete the book which contains 30
units of 1.5 hours each. Then they have one extra class for an exam which they
very much expect to pass.
Obviously, if one is running ones own courses with an open-ended schedule and
open-minded student(s), then playing games and fun activities becomes a very
attractive and useful option.

I´ve heard that kind of comments since I started using games in the late
80´s. I still find a lot of people that don´t believe that playing is serious stuff.
I´ve explained why games are better than simple written activities, given
non-believers some literature on the subject and proved my point just by
playing and helping sts acquire language faster. I´ll never forget when a huge
overseas oil company hired me to teach Spanish to the new regional president
(about t retire after this post) and his wife. I insisted on the use of games,
songs and movies; they drove me crazy and asked for a daily report! After a
week this crash course had started, I asked my two students to answer a longish
questionnaire, it was kind of a survey that included their opinion on the use
of games, songs and movies; I sent that instead of the blooming report. They
never bothered me again.

It´s true that some schools believe that turning pages equals learning
but we know better. And some of the activities in books are more difficult to
do as they appear in those books, a typical example: order the words in these
sentences. If you copy the words in slips of paper and ask sts to order them,
you´ll see it´s much easier for them to do the activity well, and faster I must
say. Manipulating the words helps a lot, they never forget any, they can
reorganize them easily, etc.
We need to avoid frustration. Emotion is a primary catalyst in the learning
process.

I'm very much in favour of making classes more interestings and more
fun. I think modern textbooks have made some very positive moves in that
general direction too. (However I do feel like shooting myself in the head
whenever I have to use "business" course books!)
Depending on ones teaching environment and the expectations of the local
culture, "fun" and "learning" might not collocate!

Ha, ha. I understand what you say. I´ve been struggling against that
concept for ages! Little by little, people tend to accept it.
When you teach business, you may prepare games to review vocabulary and
collocations. For example, memory games and snaps, which can be used as warm-up
activities.

I loath business classes, particularly 'in-company'. The students are
either there because their boss told them they had to attend, or because it
allows an extended lunch break. The supplied material is as dull as dishwater.
And when trying to be creative with activities, you have no 'information gap'
to work with because all the students work together and have known each other
for years and anyway, their lives are identical.
(I'm sorry Maria Ines, but you keep catching me last thing at night or first
thing in the morning when I'm at my most cynical)

If students are wild about grammar exercises - I think that they feel
safer with them like many of their teachers- they can do them galore on the
internet and get instant feedback. Face to face, student teacher situations are
precious and expensive so, the more planned fun and games used, the better. At
first they can seem a bit scary but the magic they create is worth it. I have
found that pictures, poetry, songs, film clips, thematic games, chanting,
making up songs and rhymes, dancing and movement and the use of internet in
class keep my students happy and stimulated and the grammar seems to fall into
place naturally - just like it does in the minds of young children learning
their own language through real situations. I started teaching foreign
languages in 1972. My students are all ages and some of them think I am wacky,
but they learn and we nearly always have a good laugh at some point in a class.

I agree with you Kit. If students are having fun in the class it will keep
them coming back ... which is good for business. Creativity also keeps the
teacher's mind stimulated. The problem I keep pointing out is getting over the
initial reluctance to participate in what can seem strange activities and whose
learning value may not be immediately obvious to the student.

I understand Daryl, what could be duller than teaching Business English
in a company? That´s exactly why we have to do somehting about it. The games I
suggested are to the point and no student has ever disliked them when I used
them. Far from it. I guess it depends on your position as regards games. I only
teach adults and I strongly believe in games so I guess that my enthusiasm is
catching. Besides, as I said before, I always tell my students why I use games.
I also believe you have to create the information gap by creating roles.
I agree with Kit. The only problem is that adults tend not to “have time” (or
the will) to do homework so we have to find ways to review in class and
creative ways are better than boring ones just because they are more effective.

We all like games, adults included! However, I believe that with adult
learners games should be chosen with great care and that they are made relevant
to the group or individual. One should always keep in mind the age, culture and
objectives of the learners. Otherwise, you might be asked "Why are we
doing this?"

I agree with Daryl. The corporate world is completely different. Bear in
mind that most of these people - and here heriarchy plays a big role - were
educated to believe they own the world, which makes the approach to teaching
much more subtle - the teacher has to be very careful on the things he/she says
and more importantly, how they say those things!

I have also lost students trying to bring them a different approach to learning
but I don't want to give up because I want to go on enjoying this noble
activity. Maybe it's not a game they need - or maybe it is. Meanwhile, I'll
keep searching beacause as a teacher, I want to have fun teaching... help!!!

I understand what you say. It depends on students and cultures. Still,
games work. I don´t work with children (only a few months which seemed ages).
I´ve worked with adults since I was 20. I´ve taught in companies such as Shell,
Massey Ferguson, American Express, Merck Sharp & Dome, Pepsicola Argentina,
ABN AMRO and Exxon Chemical Argentina, I´ve taught Presidents and VP´s of these
companies apart from executives, engineers, accountants, lawyers, managers and
the like. I´ve never lost a student because of games. I´ve always explained why
I use games and asked them to trust me. They did and they learnt. They appreciated
the explanation, my talk about the brain, memory, multiple intelligences,
learning styles, emotional intelligence…
Adults need to know why. If you guide them, choose the right games, little by
little they start to enjoy this “torture”: having to attend a class (because
the company pays for it and they need English to climb the corporate ladder).
In the end, they start finding the class a relaxing, enjoyable experience
during which they learn without frustration.
This is my humble experience.

My experience tells me that children and in-company students have a lot
in common: Someone else is paying for the classes. I think if the student has a
real personal investment in the classes their motivation and participation levels
are much higher.
Anyway, I'm rather getting off the point here. This discussion was originally
about the use of games in the classroom ... and I could rant on all night about
how much I hate business men and kids ...
I'll shut up now and let some else lead the discussion.

Yes, Daryl, in a way I agree. I still prefer adults though. = )
Yes, Syanimur, I agree. It is almost impossible to find a book that is perfect
for any student. We need to customize it, and compiling resources is a way. At
present we know that our brain is plastic, it continuously remodels itself,
sometimes within a remarkably short period of time (these biological changes
are the result of outside experience); certain intellectual functions are
restricted to one cerebral hemisphere; emotion is a primary catalyst in the
learning process; memory is not stored in a single location in the brain or
static or unitary; there are multiple intelligences, different learning styles
and emotional intelligence. It is obvious that we cannot continue using the
same methods as those of our ancestors´ believing that all our students learn
in the same way. The great challenge is to create new resources which
accelerate the acquisition of the language making the most of each student´s
abilities and strengths.

After reading, delightfully I should add, the participation of many of
you in this very fruitful forum, I think everything comes down to one thing:
Explain why and I quote María Inés here (btw, you are such an atractive woman)
"the only difference is that I explain why I use them. Adults need to
know...". I totally agree. And I think this can be taken to any extent and
to other different teaching and learning styles. In the last few classes I have
been doing just that: Today we will do this and this beacuse...

And yes, the students feel they are being acknowledged. It's like after
listening to this very simple word "because" they can now see a new
light. It's like if they could envision the whole purpose of the course itself
and it makes it worth it for them. It's only a matter of a positive attitude
and this magic word: "beacause..."

But then again, I am not playing games with my students, and in this respect, I
think it's a matter of teaching styles. María Inés believes in the power of
games to teach her students and she is absolutely convinced about it. I, on the
other hand, strongly believe in the power of grammar and I am absolutely
convinced about it. I remember some years ago I had the great opportunity to
attend a Lama Tenzin Rinpoche conference. I remember he said back then:
"It does not matter what you do just as long as long as you are absolutely
sure the thiing you do is good for you". I think it makes sense. I know
that weight-lifting is a good exercise, but I don't think it's good for me. On
the other hand, I know running is a good exercise and I also know it's good for
me. Needless to say I run, I don't do weight-lifting.

I just wanted to share this with you all and with María Inés, see you on
line!!!

Hello Daryl, Oscar here. I read your reply and I will be more than happy
to be your student in these two subjects: English cultural awareness and
Political Correctness.

Shall we start? Please make your lesson as memorable as possible so that I can
remeber what I should or should not do. Or are you just being sarcastic? If you
are, please don't. Go right to the point. I think people understand better that
way.

Making personal comments about a colleague's appearence, even if
complementary, is generally considered unacceptable behaviour in the work
place. Some people may - for a whole range of reasons too extensive to go into
here - find such unecessary comments offensive. Therefore, in some large
companies telling someone that they are "such an attractive woman"
may be a disiplinary offence.

Thanks for the advice Daryl. But first, this is your personal opinion
and I do not agree with it, second, this is not the company where I work and
according to the netiquette I am not breaching any code, third, it is María
Inés who might show her disagreement with my comment and then I will personally
apologise. I am here to share my opinion and to learn from others and I think
you missed the whole point which was playing games in the classroom and text
books.

Indeed, Oscar, but ...
1) this is not a personal opinion (see the article I attached and google
"Political Correctness")
2) this may not be the company where YOU work, but it is a working
environment.
3) comments that may be considered of a sexist or implied sexual nature can
also offend 3rd parties.
4) Yes, I agree that this discussion should be about textbooks and games in the
classroom, but you were the one who made the original remark. And anyway,
perhaps you have learned something: In Mexico you can say what you like about
the "Senioritas", but in English speaking countries it is generally
prefered that people keep such opinions to themselves or save such comments for
the guys down the pub.

Daryl:
* this is not a personal opinion (see the article I attached and google
"Political Correctness")

It becomes a personal opinion the moment you believe in it and express this
belief freely. Here I will add that it is your right to express what you
believe in.

* this may not be the company where YOU work, but it is a working
environment.

It is not a working environment. I do not work for or with you.

* comments that may be considered of a sexist or implied sexual nature can also
offend 3rd parties.

I do not see the sexual nature of it. It is just a personal opinion as it is
saying that this forum has been very fruitful.

* Yes, I agree that this discussion should be about textbooks and games in the
classroom, but you were the one who made the original remark. And anyway,
perhaps you have learned something: In Mexico you can say what you like about
the "Senioritas", but in English speaking countries it is generally
prefered that people keep such opinions to themselves or save such comments for
the guys down the pub.

You are wrong. In México you do not go around saying whatever you want to
"Señoritas" (by the way, this is the correct spelling Daryl). And one
last thing, I do not know the kind of guys you hang around with but I do not
have a drinking problem - in fact, I do not drink. So I do not have to wait to
go down the pub with a bunch of drunken guys to talk about the things and
people I like or dislike. To wrap up Daryl, my original comment has 330 words
in which I highlighted the fruitful forum, teaching and learning styles, games
Vs. grammar and even a quote from Lama Tenzin. If you want to go on with the 6
words that apparently will not let you sleep well tonight, it's very much your
problem. I will always respect you and your opinion, but for me, it is time to
turn the page.

I´ve read the comments you made yesterday and, as this is a professional
environment, I´d like to stick to the topic of this debate. What do you mean by
grammar exercises, Oscar? Just pen and paper? Why do you speak of grammar vs.
games? Don´t you believe that a game could be a grammar exercise but more
brain-friendly, motivating, engaging and fun? Don´t you agree that we have to
cater for different learning styles? We cannot expect our students to share our
learning style.

Ha, ha! I hope you share the link to the class on my wall in facebook.
Being eclectic is something we should all try to be. Selecting what appears to
be best in various methods or styles to help our students learn as fast as
possible is a must in our profession.

Playing games is one way and an invaluable way of learning grammar.
However, I think that a game can be very simple and quick, eg. guess the odd
one out, and also that a lesson can be very motivating and interesting for a
student even where games are not used. For instance, making up a survey,
deciding which questions you'd like to ask the tutor, or which questions you'd
like to be asked, discussion games, or as Sylvia says, poetry, (Haiku) are all
great fun. Five minute activities (P Ur) and similar are also useful to get
learners thinking. As a language learner, I personally dislike playing too many
games! (But that's just me!)

Deepest apologies to all for the recent behaviour of Oscar and I
(although I hope some people found it at least a little entertaining.). I was
bored, and there's nothing like a good argument (even a virtual one) to help
one relax.

Moving on. Several people have mentioned the Japanese poetry form, Haiku, as a
useful classroom tool. I'm not that familiar with it myself, so I've never used
it. What I have had great fun with is getting students to write limericks.
Great for pronunciation and stress awareness, (although rhythmic patterns are
not that well served). It can also make everyone laugh in that "naughty
schoolboy" way, with some of the 'unusual' vocabulary that is generated!

Anne, a short game is great, especially as a warm-up or to change the
mood of the class. Longer games can be very useful though -as the one I
mentioned earlier in this thread. I do use surveys (even if they tend to bore
me depending on the person you ´re asking) but I agree with Sylvia and you on
the need for variety as I´ve said before.

Daryl, I just love limericks! There was an old man from Nigeria whose manners
where rather inferior…. Haikus can be used for any level though.

I agree with you Maria, When it is boring for us (teachers) it will be a
horrible experience for our students. Hence, it is a good way to teach through
language games and impart knowledge. As we are the guide and friend to the
modern day students it will be fruitful for their learning experience.

As a child I was introduced to the nonsense poetry of Edward Lear -
considered by many to be the father of the limerick. If you want to amuse classes
of children (and yourselves) I suggest you take a look at some of his other
works. Have fun.

Hello everyone, sorry for the delay in my reply but I've just arrived
home and now I want to take the time to properly reply. Hello María Inés. Let
me please start by saying that I think there is a misperception,
misunderstanding or some kind of a myth around grammar these days. A language,
any language, is mostly based on grammar. By grammar I mean the structures,
tenses, vocabulary, (all kinds), listening exercises, reading, writing,
speaking, coherency, fluency, proficiency, etc.

I do not mean that I do not play with my students every now and then. But how
could I, when I as a student don't like games much. I really like the use of
grammar books and nowadays, there are several grammar books that are
eye-catching, very up to date in terms of relevant, and even controversial articles.
But yes, I sometimes play games, I sometimes play a song and prepare the most
suitable hand-outs, and yes, sometimes we write poems, we play with
tongue-twisters, word´puzzles, etc.

And yes, we as teachers have to cater for the different learning styles
of our students, and I think one way or another all of us do.But once again
María et all, I love grammar. And I will quote you once again María Inés:
"If it is boring for me I assume it is boring for my students" Games
are not boring for me and even if they were, there is absolutely nothing to be
ashamed of by openly confessing that I don't like games.

I think it goes like this, how can someone learn mathematics without
getting really deep into numbers? How can a doctor be a doctor without opening
a corpse? How can a lawyer be a lawyer without plunging into law? I think it's
just the same with a language. It's personal preferences and we as teachers
have that right, don't you agree?

And I almost forgot, there's also that special thing every techer has, that
personal touch, that value added, that thing he or she does to spice the class
up, to get things moving, to juice up the students. That counts too. Now, let
me finish this by saying: Enjoy your days off, yes you can live without a
computer and this discrepancies and agreements, this rich exchange of ideas and
opinions are the ones that make life much more fun. I love it too and thank you
all. I hope ypou all are enjoying this forum just as much as I am, including
you Daryl!

Lucy - WOW! All I can offer is my greatest admiration. Recently I had an
in-company group of 15 students who would come and go as they pleased. After
the first class, I rarely had more than 4 at a time, and each time a different
combination of 4, with the exception of one woman who came to almost every
class. The company was trying to have English classes "on the cheap",
and so ability levels within the group were very mixed. This frustrating
situation drove me mad! But it sounds like a mere trifle compared to what you
have been accostomed to - my congratulations.

How do you move a course like that forward? It's all very well with
advanced conversation students to have unconnected lessons where students can
dip in and out without missing anything vital - like watching the occasional
episode of "CSI" or "Seinfeld" - but at a lower level
surely there has to be some kind of progression. Students have to learn
something new and move forward, and those who don't attend regularly will find
thenselves confused - like missing a few chapters of "Lost".

I work as a private teacher teaching only private students and stay as
far away from government organised education projects as possible. In a previously
incarnation I worked within several levels of local and national government in
the UK. Local government never had enough money to carry through their grand
plans effectively, and the waste and missmanagement at a national level was
appalling. I discovered there that no politician really cares about the outcome
of the schemes they set in process, as long as the numbers look good. A high
number of attendees to the English course (counted even if they only attend
once) looks great on the statistical report; no one ever wants to know if those
students actually benefit in any way from the experience.

Me

Why not throw the dice to students and get them to participate in the
learning-teaching act, especially in higher classes in school--say 9 to 12
(according to the system in India)?

Teaching unmotivated students is the same, adult and child. We sometimes
spend too much energy trying to encourage them to want to learn. If the student
doesn't want to learn they won't bother. Acknowledge their feelings,and give
them something challenging. Treat them like adults. (including the children) If
they can do it all, it is too easy. Now focus on the class who are
interested(There are usually some) and exude enthusiasm.

A game is and activity aimed at your class. If it is easy..... If you
use it across the board without modification it will fail more often or not.
Don't call it a 'game' in a business class. It's an 'activity', a 'challenge'
or' practice'
I have many more successes than failures. I always give my best and if the
student does not want to learn so be it. I know what I do works nearly all of
the time. There are sayings galore about pleasing everyone...

People know when you are doing your best. They appreciate that and do
respond. If not go back to "You can't please everyone..." I must go,
I have a class soon and a bag full of games to play.

In the Gulf countries, where I have taught a fair bit, I've tried to
play language games. However, I find there is a tendency not to take them
seriously, if you see what I mean.
Students often take a game as a license to generally act the goat. Perhaps this
is because of a cultural predisposition towards what might be called
"book-learning", that is, if it isn't boring it isn't learning.

Arguably also learning can't always be fun. There are the boring bits that you
just have to grit your teeth and mug up on. There's too much of a feeling these
days that if it aint fun it aint worth doing. Life will, by it's nature,
contain boring bits. Why shouldn't education prepare us for life, which will
not all be hugely interesting.

I think an example of games not being called 'games.' They now become
activities and challenges.
I must bow the the superior knowledge of those that have encountered this
attitude. However If that is what they want then fine. Scrub the games. That is
what being flexible is all about and the students are as much our masters as
the parents and the management.
A 'game' however is not just there to provide 'fun', it provides a change of
pace and a chance to practice. The change of pace is half the battle despite
the content that follows. So if you don't want to play a game you do need to
change the pace in a different way. With a little imagination the meanest of
textbook can come alive and full of exciting possibilities. And even with my
limited experience I have seen some mean old textbooks. They may become merely
a springboard into some other activity. On one occasion we just re-wrote the
chapter in small blocks into different tenses(including the passive) That gets
the brain ticking. On another occasion we just described the book itself in
detail. (Physical detail in detail so to speak, location (prize for the most
different prepositions used relative to other objects) Description of its worth
as an entity. It's quality, pictures, paper, printing, font etc) I forget half
of the things we did with it. oh, we did go on.

We must take the students into account when we plan what we are going to
do with them.
I must admit I find it hard to see anything as boring. even rote learning. I
have a game(ooops sorry, I mean challenge) for that too....

Me

A textbook is only one tool in the hands of committed teachers. They can
use newspaper articles, letters to the editor, cooking recipes, sports
magazines (not fashion magazines for diversion here is the easiest and the
quickest!), fiction you may have read or are reading, videos, films--anything
that can offer scope for teaching and learning. Or you can give the initiative
to students to bring their material.

Yes, it is only one tool. But all too often it is effectively the
syllabus and in exam classes there is pressure to stick fairly close to it. One
has to justify the use of other tools by showing how they satisfy the syllabus
aims, particularly where the students' employer is the paying client.

Then you have to use it! As in all these discussions there are examples
of one extreme or another. You use the flexibility you are given or are trusted
with but every one must work within the boundaries they are given.
Just offer a little prayer of thanks if you are like me and are allowed a
little flexibility.

(Is there a 'best' way? Good
question...)
I'm curious enough to 'follow' this discussion, to see how this is followed
up.

My answer will only be partial: 'Follow it up' is my motto

For starts, words and collocations, chunks, should generally follow students'
level and in the order of common usage, so first basic and then 2nd-level lexis
(Synonyms).*

A) One can provide a (graded, adapted) text (slightly higher than) the level at
which students are at, with a list of 10 -12 words and phrases [you deduce from
experience, hopefully knowing their mother-tongue] will be important / useful,
others interesting for them.
1- Have students help each other, have them guess by the context, afterwards
have look them up. (Teacher alone cannot presume they don't already know these
or some at least).
2- Clarify any cultural differences there might be, if necessary. Check and
fine-tune pronunciation (v. spelling).

Higher-level students are encouraged to search the BNS or COCA to get authentic
samples of usage.

Have them produce meaningful sentences (spoken, then written) to see if they
can appropriate these.

* 'flat' before 'dwelling' ;-) 'car' before 'automobile' or 'vehicle', even though
the first may be more difficult to learn than the latter (depending on their
L1); but since they are more commonly used). Teacher should look up the
etymology of words in many cases, btw. ;-)

B) Another way, which works fine for some (and others less), is to provide a
more comprehensive list of related words (e.g. human anatomy / automobile) with
visuals.
Diverse activities can be found for dealing with learning these. (e.g.
Crosswords, etc)

A certain autonomy is expected, much exposure (3 or mores times), much
repetition (7 times ideally), room and tolerance for mistakes until the learner
is able to correct him- /herself. Hence the 'ELT Resources' (apps! more good
apps!)

When the learner makes a mistake, if I laugh at THE MISTAKE and explain why it
is funny, the learner will remember 'the joke', hence the 'mistake' better...
next time round.
So there also needs to be a 'next-time-round', for lack of a better word.
;-)

I have found, in most cases, learners will learn better when they take down on
paper new words [they find useful].

At first, this looks like a simple innocent question. But on further
thought it becomes more complex to answer. Finally, my opinion is it's the
wrong question. To elucidate, language itself is a series of vocabulary. To
teach vocabulary seems to be a misunderstanding of the teaching process, what
we should be doing is giving big enough samples of language either words or
phrases for the student to make meaningful communication possible. We might for
instance offer students headers for questions and answers and let the student
choose appropriate fill to complete each side of the QA equation. We might give
form and their associated morphs to express variation in meaning or focus. To
me, providing and endless list of words to learn is non-productive and in my
experience it is a very slow way to introduce a learner to language. However,
in many schools in the world the need for vocabulary is driven solely by the need
for a student to pass an exam and therefore the needless chore of spitting out
supposed meanings for words begins.

I would never consider teaching words in isolation, I always try to provide a
pattern with the word attached or contained. I prefer spider grams linking
pieces together to form imaginary lists of choices or groups for students to
remember. I try to create pictures of menu structures in a student’s mind
stimulating pattern memory for the common words and phrases. This seems to
speed connection building and allow those connections to strengthen quickly. I
am an advocate of lexical language approaches but within the control of
standardized methodology in order to control the presentation and practice
phases.

We have to realize that words are grouped according to parts of speech and
therefore require different teaching methods and styles. The key importance of
teaching words i think is getting students to remember the sounds of words and
the articulation of mouth parts for pronunciation before caring to much about
written representations of the word. It’s the sounds that are key and
therefore... The real question is; how do we get students to remember sounds
primarily rather than the written representation of a word?

First, we need to look for some ways to PRESENT vocabulary not to TEACH
it.
Second, the types of vocabulary, for example, receptive and productive
vocabularies, need to be identified before using any way. For receptive
vocabulary presentation, teachers can ask learners to read texts or listen to
recordings and then underline or pick out the new words, to later, try to
deduce their meanings from the context or use dictionaries. To increase our
learners' productive vocabulary, teachers can use vocabulary grids, show
pictures, give some letters and ask them to guess the omitted letters.

And what is important is to recall and recycle what has been presented as
vocabulary in future classes.

for a few years, i have shown tendency to make categorizations among
words in terms of semantic and morphologic forms and this has attracted the
students' attention. For example, i am giving a word like "reliable"
and ask the students to roll around the synonyms, anthonyms, verb form, noun
form etc. then this technique gives rise to formation of a vocabulary pool. An
important point is that we don't mind the exact meaning of the word in the
native language, Turkish here..

Me

I don't know how lexis is handled in a native teaching/learning
environment. In non-native environment, vocabulary building through learning
affixes, vocabulary learning in 'prepared' contexts, gathering words through
synonyms and antonyms, matching words, choosing a word for a given
sentence--all these may not amount to much because it is a very conscious
learning.

I picked up most of my words in Thamizh, my first tongue so to say (though not
my mother tongue) listening and reading. And I also picked up vocabulary in
English, which is another's language, through again listening (watching films)
and reading (a lot of fiction and non-fiction) rather than through vocabulary
exercises and textbook reading.

Permanence is guaranteed the more you listen and the more you read in live
environment and the more you put them to use in writing even for a non-native
language, where the subconscious, the ever-greedy repository, is busily engaged
to do its job, which it does perfectly.

Unsure if there are "magic techniques", but we can help
learners by focusing on a lot of different aspects....

1. Development of strategies such as prediction, guessing unknown words from
context, focusing on stressed words to catch key meaning, applying both
language and world knowledge to guess when you miss something, learning to
focus on chunks of meaning rather than individual words, skimming, scanning,
learning to 'zoom out' for gist (top down processing) and 'zoom in' for
detailed understanding (bottom-up) and to switch between strategies as
needed

2. Raising awareness of features of connected speech - linking, reduction,
elision, etc to help make sense of relaxed pronunciation

4. Awareness of context and features of speech - situation, relationship
between speakers, shared background, repetition to aid understanding,
signalling devices to help the listener follow, paraphrasing etc

Just doing lots of it really, lots of different sorts. And not always
with an obvious task.or under stress. Train learners to ask What/Where/When/Why
as a sort of all -purpose comprehension check while they're listening.

Me

Dianna has presented an exhaustive list and to top it all she closes
with a 'to name a few'!

In relation to my context of teaching which takes place in Turkey, the
most challenging aspect of English grammar is the usage of simple past versus
present perfect! It is simply due to the fact that Turkish lacks the latter
structure mentioned above. That is why students usually have hard times to
distinguish between these two concepts in terms of function!

Quite a few parts of the English grammar are challenging to teach ---
the irregular verbs, the gerund , the phrasal verbs, the conditionals -- the
modals and the auxiliaries -- I think the best way to deal with the present
perfect is with the help of a time line . In India, people speak in the
continuous tense all the time -- whether they mean the simple present or
whether they are referring to the 'present perfect'.

I find the difference between simple and continuous tenses continues to
baffle and confuse nearly all learners right up to ESOL Levels 1 and 2 (Upper-
Intermediate) and, as mentioned above, very often it's because the learners'
native languages don't discriminate between the different meanings expressed
through simple and continuous tenses, or else discriminate between these
meanings through other means than tense formation, such as by adding time
markers. The use of timelines is of course invaluable as a way of explaining
the different meanings, but only frequent and endless drills seem to be
effective in getting it embedded - not the most interesting experience for
either learner or teacher!

In a country like India which is a multi-lingual nation it is very
difficult to teach Tense forms of verb-both regular and irregular because the
basic English grammar rules cannot be translated into any Indian language
including its national language Hindi

Me

Indians have these difficulties:
The use of articles and the prepositions are the most difficult because even
educated speakers and writers are unsure. The present perfect with the past
time adverbs is most common.

In Japan the difficulty is that determiners are not used, singular and
plural, likewise and there is only one tense for present and future. However, I
think the biggest problem is that everyone insists on teaching verb tenses in
isolation. I am new to teaching English grammar myself and had just as much
difficulty as non native speakers in mastering all the rules. (Mastering is
probably an exaggeration). In the end I had to develop my own methods. I now teach tenses together along with one or two common verbs. They
learn four tenses to begin with (simple( I don't call it simple present as it
is not technically a present tense, It's habitual), simple future, simple past,
and continuous.) and the balance together soon afterwards. The modals also get
rolled out together soon after that. We hit the'high spots' and then practice
and develop over time. Seeing the tenses and modal verbs in relation to each
other makes a great deal of difference. The use of the diagram and physical
'touch and say' also helps. Here is my version of the first four tenses for
anyone who may be interested. http://chilledenglish1a.blogspot.jp/2013/12/the-first-four-verb-tenses.htmland the basic diagram: http://chilledenglish1a.blogspot.jp/2013/12/extra-information-when.htmlI have also found this 'block introduction' of determiners, modals,
frequencies etc also works well. Lot's of grammar and a little vocabulary, then
practice and develop in tandem.

Thank you, Richard, for sharing your ways of teaching tenses. I shall
certainly check out on these resources.
If you ask me, most of the grammar is taught in isolation -- and that's why
there are problems.Teaching in context is the key to understanding how the
language works. And I have also noticed that not much importance is given to
those 'twenty little words' (i.e. the modals and the auxiliaries ) which are
block builders -- especially the trio of (1) 'be' and its forms (2) 'have, has,
had and (3) do , does and did !
In India also, people have a lot of trouble with the determiners -- and then
there is a lot of translation that goes on -- and naturally, things tend to get
'lost in translation'!!!!!!!

When I teach determiners to Japanese children I do so with brackets. (a
dog) (The apple) Then when we speak we mimic those brackets with hand
movements. One for the determiner one for the noun. If you have only one
bracket action you have missed something...

The children become used to the action and showing the the hand movement
for the bracket is usually sufficient to remind them they have missed the
determiner. With constant use it does sink in.

As for the tenses have a look at my tactile learning blog entry. It has
been difficult to put down 'on paper' but I hope it gets the idea across.http://chilledenglish1.blogspot.jp/2013/11/tactile-learning.htmlthere is an example for the first four. Hopefully in the near future I
will get the complete twelve down including those tricky perfect tenses.

The perfect tenses have been the biggest challenge faced by my students.
Mainly because some of them are always trying to relate it to Portuguese. Is it
common for speakers of other languages to find perfect tenses difficult?

Learning a new language can be very difficult, but
you can make it easier for yourself by NOT creating more barriers that will
hinder your progress. These tips (in no particular order) should help to
make your learning process a lot smoother, and make learning English fun!

1. STOP translating!

Translating should only be something you need to do
in the very early stages of learning English.

Once you have a basic grasp of vocabulary, you
should stop thinking in your own language and trying to translate everything,
as this slows your progress down, and limits your focus!

When someone says something, concentrate on the
words you DO know, and build your understanding from there.

2. DON’T be afraid to make mistakes!

Fear can become a huge barrier, which makes it
difficult to progress. If you know the rules of grammar, but struggle to hold a
conversation – that doesn’t mean you should avoid talking in English!

STOP thinking about how people might react, and
what they’ll say. Everyone makes mistakes, and then they learn from them – that
is how you get better at it!

3. STOP negative self-talk!

Having a negative attitude doesn’t help improve
your learning, it makes it worse. If you find you’re saying negative things to
yourself like:

“Why do I always get it wrong? I’m so stupid.”

“I always make mistakes; I’ll never get better at
this.”

“I don’t know what to say, it’s so hard to speak in
English.”

This needs to change! Try to turn them into
positive statements, you can rephrase them to show positivity. Instead of
saying “I’ll never get better at this”, you should say “I’m going to keep
trying, I’m sure I’ll get better at it soon.”

Instead of saying “Sorry, I don’t speak English, I
can’t understand you”, say “Sorry, I’m still learning how to speak English, so
could you speak a bit slower please?”

Positivity helps you to learn much quicker!

4. STOP being nervous!Speak in English every time you have the opportunity.
If you think about speaking, then you’ll just feel even more nervous. Just put
yourself out there, and speak!

The more you speak, the more confident and
comfortable you will feel, and the quicker you will learn how to communicate in
English properly!

You may need to step out of your comfort zone a
little bit, but the more you speak in English, the more you will begin to feel
relaxed.

5. STOP taking it personally when
people don’t understand you!At some point, you will meet someone who, no matter
how hard you try, just can’t understand you. This happens all the time.

Due to the large number of English speakers in the
world, there is a wide range of accents, some of which, can be hard to
understand!

The more you speak and practice your newfound
skills, the more you will improve. Even native English speakers didn’t learn
how to speak in a few months!

The main thing is that you are trying, most people
will understand and appreciate that. So just relax, and start talking!

7. DON’T just learn in class!Learning in a classroom environment is great
because you get to ask questions, pick your teacher’s brain, and share ideas
with classmates, but you also need to implement the English language into your
daily life, and communicate with people in English at every opportunity you
get.

If you don’t practice speaking English outside the
classroom, then your ability to progress will remain very limited. This is one
of the most important things you need to remember.

It is the best way to learn, and will definitely
influence how quickly you improve!

8. DON’T give up!At first, it always seems hard when you’re learning
something new, but if you keep at it – it will become easier!

You have to keep practising if you want to get
better, otherwise it’ll get harder to improve.

Professional athletes have to do the same, they
train hard all the time, because if they didn’t – their skills would just get
worse!

9. STOP worrying!Don’t waste a chance to speak English because
you’re worried about whether they will understand you or not. Be confident, and
have an ‘I can do it’ attitude.

Don’t be shy! Least of all, don’t worry about
learning, because it’s supposed to be fun. The more fun you have, the easier
you will learn!

10. STOP comparing yourself to other
English speakers!No matter what level of English you are on, you
worked hard to get there. Be proud of what you have achieved.

Everybody is different, some people learn languages
more easily than others, and some people spend more time working to improve their
English. Just because your friend is learning faster than you, doesn’t mean
you’re not on the right path!

11. STOP using outdated, inefficient
methods! (please)Grammar-translation methods, and memorisation of
rules have been standard practice for a very long time, but they’re probably
not the most effective ways to learn.

Some students study English for many years, and
know all the rules of grammar and sentence structures, but still struggle to
communicate properly and hold a conversation in English.

It is important to have a significant amount of
time focusing on conversational, functional language use, and learn in context
through interaction with other people!

12. DON’T work too hard on one skill
and neglect the others!If you just want to be able to speak to people,
then you might place less emphasis on reading and writing, but you shouldn’t
neglect them too much, as they are also crucial for fluency.

You should concentrate on improving your speaking
skills, but also dedicate a suitable amount of time practising your reading,
writing and listening skills. You shouldn’t underestimate the benefits all
these skills have on each other!

13. STOP spending too much time
studying!If you sit in front of a book or screen for hours,
going over the same rules and flashcards again and again, it won’t make you
learn any faster!

You should have short study periods of up to 30
minutes, then spend a generous amount of your available time putting the
language skills you’ve learnt, into practice.

It’s okay to study for up to 30 minutes, take a
break, then go back to studying if you really need to, but studying for a long
period of time, without taking a break, is quite exhausting for your brain!

14. STOP thinking of learning as a
chore!

Learners sometimes associate study with something
that is unpleasant, which turns it into ‘boring homework’, and ‘boring
exercises’.

Even if they realise that learning is important,
they may not be self-motivated enough to do it all the time! It needs to be
something you want to do, not have to do. Make it interesting so you have fun
when you’re learning.

- If you’re walking down the street, build simple
English sentences in your head about the things you see around you

- Learn a new word each day and try to use it in
conversation

- Watch a funny video on the internet and tell
someone what it’s about

Soon you will stop thinking of boring classes,
difficult grammar rules or lengthy homework – instead you’ll be thinking about
a funny English TV show, your favourite band, or interesting conversations with
different people – in English!

Only one kind of person would do these sort of
things – the kind of person who enjoys them! If you want to learn how to
speak English well, you have to be that person. Have you ever heard of anyone
who became successful by doing something they hated?

15. DON’T disregard the culture!Language is made up of so many intricate
expressions of culture, that it is impossible for books and courses to cover
them adequately.

For example, the way an average, ordinary person
interacts with other people in his or her community. All cultures and small
communities have different gestures, intonation, slang terms, proximity,
interjections, fillers, and short cuts!

If you are focusing on learning the tongue of a
certain community then it would be best to integrate with them, and learn from
them!

K R Lakshminarayanan

This list is pretty good. I’ve shared this at
Facebook, Twitter and Google +

'Why was the poor man felt sad ? --'Why was the conductor refuse the to
take the frog on a ride/" Are there any rules for this kind of auxiliary
error ?

I know that the construction should
be --'Why did the poor man feel sad ?' and ' Why did the conductor refuse to
take the frog on a ride ?' --- But how do I explain to the students that the
auxiliary 'did ' is to be used and not 'was' ?
Another time someone said 'Why was you not brought your book'? When it should
be 'Why did you not bring your book?'
The confusion mainly seems to be with the use of the Wh- 'why'?

He does his homework before going to bed every day.
He does the shopping on tthe weekend.
He does the cooking in the catering company.

"Do" can also refer to an activity that we know from the context.

They did him in with a knife. [they stabbed a knife into him and killed him]

I'm done in [The activity I have been doing was so intense that now I am in a
state of exhaustion].

The old combinations "do on" and "do off" (= put on and
take off) have now become "don" (e.g. "don a hat" put on a
hat) and "doff" ("he doffed his hat" he took his hat off).

"Do" is also used to emphasis the truth of the activity of the verb:
He does often swim in the morning. [it is a fact that he swims every morning]
He does love her. [it is iundeed true that he loves her]
This use is why we use "do" in questions and negatives - it focues on
the "truth value" of the statement:

Does he often swim in the morning? = Is it true or false that he swims in the
morning?
He doesn't often swim in the morning. = it is not true that he often swims in
the morning.
Doesn't he often swim in the morning? = Isn't it true - I don't think it is
false - that he swims in the morning?

"Do" focuses on the truth of "yes" or "no" of the
activity either as a fact (or not a fact) in the present, or the past.

"have" has a range of uses, varying from ownership/possession thorugh
holding to "having" a situation.

He has a brand new car. (ownership)
He has a pen in his hand. (holding)
He has five children to look after this morning. (has a situation - an abstract
"holding")
He has dinner at 7 every evening on the dot. (has a situation - an abstract
"holding")

He has the dogs let out every morning at 6. (has a situation - causes a
situation - which results in the dogs being let out).

This is true also of the perfect. The perfect essentially says "have a
situation that is a result or stems frmo a previous situation".

"He has broken his computer." - now he has a broken computer, and
that is as a result of him breaking his computer in the past.

"Have" overly shows that we know have a situation based on the past
action. As an "auxiliary" (the first example), the question and
negative must be made with "have", as it is the important word in the
meaning transfer. We want to make it clear that the present situation (in the
present perfect) HAS a result from a previous time (the pst). "Do" is
incompatible with that, as "do" can only show present truth/lack of
ruth or past truth/lack of truth - but not the link between the two.

did in and done in are phrasal verbs
--- but thank you, Rod, for your time in painstakingly compiling all the
different functions of 'be' , 'do' and have. I shall carefully study all the
material -- and apply to the list of wrongly structured questions that I
have.
The difficulty that the Indian students have is understanding the functions of
these three verb forms in their various avatars --- as models, as auxiliaries
and as 'full' verbs. At one workshop, I asked the teachers to come up with
difficulties they experienced with students-- one said students didn't ask them
questions / didn't cross question them. I said that that is because they don't
know how to construct questions -- the skill of asking questions in the correct
format is an important skill --- because meaningful communication happens all
day only via questions.

You are right to focus on question
format. Communication and self-learning can only advance through curiosity -
and if you are curious, you need to know how to ask the question.

Of course, Englsih question structure is different from Hindi (etc.) question
structure, so there is also this issue.

The term "phrasal verb" is a misnomer. Though there is an idiomatic
level, it is NOT true that the verb and the preposition-particle change or lose
meaning in phrasal verbs. They retain their core meanings, and the key to
understanding phrasal verbs are always the core meanings.

You also need to keep this in mind when teaching phrasal verbs - there are over
15,000, and native English children already know the phrasal verb system by the
time they are 5 years old. It is a very simple system that we teachers and our
textbooks make much much too complex. It is literally impossible to learn and
use 15,000 phrasal verbs by thinking that each one is a separate lexical item.
Native speakers do not do that; why should we expect learners to do that? We
understand "phrasal verbs" as a combination of a verb (e.g.
"fly") and a preposition-particle (e.g. "off"). Here I talk
about we native speakers who have not had our understanding skewed by becoming
English teachers and having our feeling for English misguided.

Most English teachers actually know little about English as a language; it does
not form part of their training. They might now a lot about English as
literature, poetry, formal grammar, and so on, but this does not mean know
anything about English the language. Essentially, English teachers make the
task of learning English more complex than it needs to be.

Even though "did in" and "done in" have idiomatic uses,
this (as I showed) come directly from their concrete uses of
"do"/"did" = "do an activity", and "in"
to "being inside (contained) by something" ("do someone in"
is killing someone by either stabbing them or shooting them; there is also an
older, rare use of "doing someone in to the police" - reporting them
to the police; "I am done in" - the activity I was doing has been so
intense that I am now IN a state of extreme tiredness).

If you want you students to really understand English and to be proficient in
English, they have to understand to this level.

This is the same for the auxiliaries. They are not random words; their use as
auxiliaries depends on their core meaning. Indian students (and everyone else)
have difficulties because we teachers and our textbooks/grammarbooks present English
in a complex, structure/grammar-focused way rather than in a communicative way.
Unfortunately, India has retained a lot of the pre-independence old fashioned
British Raj education system. Very structured, but not very communicative. It
says a lot for many Indians that they succeed very well despite the system.

It also says a lot that many succeed as engineers, computer specialists,
business people, where an expert proficiency in English is not needed.

' Indian students (and everyone else)
have difficulties because we teachers and our textbooks/grammar books present
English in a complex, structure/grammar-focused way rather than in a
communicative way. Unfortunately, India has retained a lot of the
pre-independence old fashioned British Raj education system. Very structured,
but not very communicative. It says a lot for many Indians that they succeed
very well despite the system,' ---------------------@ Rod, kudos to your
summing up of the way English is taught in India . It's grammar, grammar and
more grammar --- in the Course Books, in the work books , and in addition there
is a series of separate 'only' grammar books--- and yet children can't speak or
write good / correct English. Books do not meet the needs of the student
community ----- neither do the teachers -- they are all deep into the 'rote'
system. For about 80 % of students in India , English is a foreign language (
'it's all Greek' to them) -- for around 15 % , i might say, English is Second
Language -- and the remaining could be categorized as English First Language
speakers. I am struggling hard against this grammar teaching business in the
School / College which is in my charge currently.
I was using phrasal verbs long before I knew their technical name ! Thank you
again, Rod.

You are welcome :-) (the technical
name was invented in 1925 - and the person who invented it did not like the
termname - he threw it out as a suggestion in the hopes of finding something
better - before that, people learnt English perfectly well without knowing the
term).

Me

These questions give me a message:
the students are aware (if only subconsciously) that they cannot frame
questions in English with just the verb: the poor man felt sad, that framing a
question needs another verb to go with the main verb. You must congratulate
them because they know (again subconsciously) that constructing sentences
questions in English is different from constructing them in Hindi, Thelugu or
Thamizh for instance, which would be: why the poor man felt sad, why the
conductor refused to take the frog on a ride, why you not brought your book
((Thoo) pusthak ko laayaa kyon nahi(n)?). The only problem they have is with
the choice. Probably, adding a derivative of ‘be’ is easier than using ‘do’ or
‘did’.

The confusion may not be with the use of ‘why’ only; if it were, that is, if
they used the right splitting to form other questions, your task would be easy.
Splitting the verb to form a question or negative sentence is something that
must sink into their subconscious.

If I were you, I’d try something like this:
write out several dialogues—short and long,
get them spoken by students (if only by ‘rote’),
ask them to write out dialogues imitating the given ones,
make corrections if necessary,
get them to enact them,
take them to the next level of their own dialogues without props,
let them practise them

This activity can take 10 or 15 minutes of every class until you feel students
are comfortable with these structures. Then test them. I’m sure very few would
still be committing such errors.

These dialogues should have question and negative sentence formation in all
tenses with both regular and irregular verbs. It shouldn’t be difficult to
write dialogues which of course must have for themes day to day activities in
the institution, canteen, hostel, the cinema, hotel, shopping, eateries,
involving them in arguments.

Then of course you might if you like explain the verb getting split
(do/does/did) for past and present tense forms, the subject being placed in the
middle (of course this won’t be necessary for negative sentences).

This procedure is likely to work better than showing the splitting and getting
students to split them consciously and practise forming questions consciously
in this fashion.

About Me

I hail from Thamizh Nadu, a Southern state of India. I speak Thamizh, Thelugu, English and Hindi.

I served for 43 years as a teacher of English in schools and colleges in India, Ethiopia and Nigeria. I've published several articles on ELT and of general interest in the USA, Ethiopia and India. I've presented several papers in national and international conferences. I've written several course books for the English syllabuses of Bachelor of Engineering of Madras University, Anna University and JNTU, Hyderabad, for public consumption as well.